The C# Church is definitely not the AntiChrist

[ViaCrucis]

The antichrists mentioned in the Johanine epistles refer to early Docetist heretics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The antichrists mentioned in the Johanine epistles refer to early Docetist heretics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

-CryptoLutheran

Okay, I get what you are saying. I also think the current antichrists are still those who don't believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God (alternately denying he could have come in the flesh). We've been accused of being "infidels".... not to sound like I'm goading I think the rivalry was just predestined.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Aelred of Rievaulx I understand that not all chapters in revelation address the current times, including, the seven churches, as well as the woman and the dragon. But when it comes to the "The Woman and the Beast" I'm kind of lost because if the beast is the one in Revelations 13 & 17 then explain to me like a 1 year old on what this mark of the beast is. Or what time was there was a mark on people's foreheads and hands. (Don't say it's symbolic, most scripture is too literal!!!)

All the same, I will remain convinced that the Beast is still a leader who was once a leader, lost his term but came back again, regardless of your reservations on the same.

A fairly common understanding is that "the beast" whose name is calculated at six hundred and sixty-six (or, in other ancient manuscripts, six hundred and sixteen) is probably intended to refer to Nero in particular. Even though Nero had been dead for many years when St. John wrote the Apocalypse, there was another emperor--Domitian--who had the reigns in Rome, and we read this from Eusebius of Caesarea, an early historian of the Church,

"Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.

It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian." To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ." - Eusebius, Church History, III.17-18

In this reading, Domitian is presented as, essentially, Nero returned. As John writes, the beast who had suffered a fatal wound to the head (Nero was fatally stabbed in the neck) came back to life, and the world was to bow to and worship the image of the beast--it was Domitian who reinvigorated the cult of emperor worship, and who built a temple dedicated to his father Vespasian and his brother Titus. Christians were again persecuted for their refusal to participate in the imperial cult.

There was also, at the time John wrote the Apocalypse, a legend circulating around the empire that had been persisting since Nero's death, the legend of Nero Redivivus (Nero revived).

I would, however, point out that there really isn't a reason to assume that what the Johanine epistles refer to as "antichrist" and "antichrists" necessarily corresponds to the beast of the Apocalypse, that is an assumption which many make, but is by no means necessitated anywhere in the biblical texts themselves. The antichrists which are mentioned in the epistles most likely really are just referring to heretics, whereas the beast refers to the oppressive imperial power structure in Rome which was, at the time, persecuting the Church, in particular the churches of Asia Minor to whom the Apocalypse is addressed. Remember, the Apocalypse wasn't written to us, it was written to "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelation 1:4). If the text isn't relevant to the original audience then any act of exegeting or trying to interpret the text is probably meaningless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Who cares? The book of Revelation was an ancient commentary on the fall of Jerusalem .

Until you notice that Rev was written in the 90's long after the 70's when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Oh yes and the fact that Rev 19 - send coming, Rev 20 millennium and resurrection of the saints, and lake of fire destruction of the wicked... has not yet happened.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Until you notice that Rev was written in the 90's long after the 70's when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Oh yes and the fact that Rev 19 - send coming, Rev 20 millennium and resurrection of the saints, and lake of fire destruction of the wicked... has not yet happened.

I think it was written around 70 CE, I don't buy the notion that it was written in the 90s. "Apocalypsos" means to unveil; this sort of literature was quite common and was understood by everyone between 200 BCE and 200 CE as political and religious commentary.

 

[BobRyan]

I think it was written around 70 CE, I don't buy the notion that it was written in the 90s. "Apocalypsos" means to unveil; this sort of literature was quite common and was understood by everyone between 200 BCE and 200 CE as political and religious commentary.

I don't buy that. For one thing the Millennium is long after 70 A.D. so Rev is unquestionably about the future.
It is pretty hard to believe that over the next 2000 years of Church history - the only thing Christians needed to worry about - was the destruction of Jerusalem 20 years prior to the writing of the book of Revelation... or 3 years after the book was written if you go for the 66 AD version of it.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I don't buy that. For one thing the Millennium is long after 70 A.D. so Rev is unquestionably about the future.
It is pretty hard to believe that over the next 2000 years of Church history - the only thing Christians needed to worry about - was the destruction of Jerusalem 20 years prior to the writing of the book of Revelation... or 3 years after the book was written if you go for the 66 AD version of it.

Well, that's not what they worried about. Over the next 2000 years most Christians didn't even bother very much with the book of Revelation. They kept it as something of an appendix in their canons, if at all and they didn't even include any readings from it in their liturgies for the most part. Most Christians were amillennialists after St Augustine, they considered the "millennium" to be the life of the Church. To be perfectly frank, a very peculiar and johnnie come lately form of Christianity which developed only in the modern era and predominantly in the United States is the one which is so obsessed with the book of Revelation... That's around when your religion was invented, if I'm not mistaken...

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Revelations is not time bound (time is quite relative throughout the Book!!!) meaning there's no way we can trash it or assume it. Some of the things written are still in one way or another relevant or evident in the current times. The sad part is how we are quick to disregard its importance especially now that it's been more than two millenniums and nothing big has really happened nor has there been something big so far.

It's shocking that it has already come to pass in some churches and the question is, "How could the coming of Christ be such a mystery yet even in his first coming he ensured that everyone who assumed he was the Son of God knew he was exactly that by the time they pronounced him dead?" Not only did the temple split into two, there was a massive resurrection and better still, there have been no traces of his body to date.

His second coming; even if we won't believe in all the signs in the books... when he does come back the world will know HE CAME BACK!!!

 

[mikedsjr]

Was trying to figure out what a programming language had to do with the Church & the Antichrist.

I think he means to write everything in C#

Console.WriteLine("I'm really uninterested in this subject.");
Console.ReadLine();

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Well, that's not what they worried about. Over the next 2000 years most Christians didn't even bother very much with the book of Revelation. They kept it as something of an appendix in their canons, if at all and they didn't even include any readings from it in their liturgies for the most part. Most Christians were amillennialists after St Augustine, they considered the "millennium" to be the life of the Church. To be perfectly frank, a very peculiar and johnnie come lately form of Christianity which developed only in the modern era and predominantly in the United States is the one which is so obsessed with the book of Revelation... That's around when your religion was invented, if I'm not mistaken...

Not surprising the RC didn't read or try to understand Revelation considering the light it shines upon the Papacy. Regarding the renewed interest in the books of Daniel and Revelation, that was prophesied to happen in Daniel at the time of the end, when if you do a study on it, occurred after the persecution of God's people ended in 1798. It was after this time that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon men, Bible societies and missionary stations were spreading like wildfire and men were given understandings of the prophesies in Daniel that had not been understood beforehand. The events of Revelation are a perfect unfolding of the church over the centuries. Read the book The Seer of Patmos to understand that history and prophesy have always worked in God's perfect order.

 

[miamited]

The antichrist or the antichrists will have the following characteristics:

1. Vehemently deny Jesus was the Son of God and he actually came to earth, died, and resurrected, now sits on the right hand of God.
2. To date- they still persecute Christians
3. They are vile and consistently reject the Gospels
4. They are the masters of immoralities
5. They must have grown to be powerful enough to influence political climates in the current times
6. They were present during Paul's time (the antichrists)
7. Also, the beast must be someone who was once a king, lost his position, but then came again.
8. The beast should be an 8th leader of a particular Kingdom, country or something significantly huge.
9. The beast, along with other 10 rulers will rule their respective kingdoms (simultaneously) for one hour (I think metaphorically) but with the 10 rulers receiving their guidance from the beast.
10. The Prostitute is a CITY (you are looking for the most powerful city in the world that has a significant presence in most nations) that's so influential, it should be the Beast's (perhaps the place it frequents) because of its privileges, if not the pleasures. In fact, it's a city filled with all sorts of profanities that Kings find pleasure in it and worse still, renowned for persecuting Christians. However, they will come to hate city or the beast and the 10 kings and later destroy it.

Hi linet,

First off, you're mixing attributes of the beast with attributes of the final Antichrist. I don't think that makes for a sound thesis if your attempt, per the title, is to deny that the Catholic organization is or may be the final Antichrist. Of course, I'm not sure that the entire organization is ever supposed to be the final Antichrist, but merely a person. So, the question is really whether or not the final Antichrist will be a part of that organization?

I don't know and I won't be surprised in either case. That is, that the final Antichrist is or isn't part of the Catholic system. Quite frankly, I've often considered that the beast will be a part of the Catholic organization but not the final Antichrist. But again, I really don't know how the Scriptural prophecies will play out as the future unfolds. Yes, there are some clues, as you have mentioned, as to the nature of both the beast and the final Antichrist, but nothing that can yet be attributed to any particular person or organization.

What I do believe is that as the scenario unfolds, born again believers will understand what's going on and who is who. Many generations, since the new covenant writings, have thought themselves to be very near the end of the last days. Personally, I'm not convinced that the time of the end is yet that close that we can point to someone or organization that fits the bill.

As the Scriptures tell us, there will be many antichrists. We today, just like generations before, are living with those who deny Jesus is who and what he claimed to be. There have been some gestures made by the Catholic organization to accept that all religions should be accepted as valid and yes, this would be against Christ. Yes, yes, I readily agree that there are other groups of 'believers' who also are working to adopt such a stance, but the Catholic organization, if it did pursue this action, would be the largest of such.

All I will say is that we, born again believers, need to be watchful. Not trying to guess who or what will meet the Scriptural criteria, but rather, knowing when it happens what's going on.

There is coming a day when God will bring an end to this realm as we know it today. The Scriptures seem to be quite clear that shortly before that time there will be some clear signs that born again believers will see and recognize as the prelude to that day. Are those signs evident yet? I don't think so, but the groundwork for them is certainly being laid.

I'm of a mind that the things written about those days will not just come upon us with swift surprise, but will build up through a consensus of men's minds and deeds. We have certainly become more wicked overall. We have certainly come to a point where, as mankind, we adopt and accept wickedness and sin as pretty normal, and as Paul wrote to the Romans, we are giving more approval of such ways every successive generation. But, how bad will it get? I don't know, but I can see that it can get a lot worse.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Hi linet,

First off, you're mixing attributes of the beast with attributes of the final Antichrist. I don't think that makes for a sound thesis if your attempt, per the title, is to deny that the Catholic organization is or may be the final Antichrist. Of course, I'm not sure that the entire organization is ever supposed to be the final Antichrist, but merely a person. So, the question is really whether or not the final Antichrist will be a part of that organization?

I don't know and I won't be surprised in either case. That is, that the final Antichrist is or isn't part of the Catholic system. Quite frankly, I've often considered that the beast will be a part of the Catholic organization but not the final Antichrist. But again, I really don't know how the Scriptural prophecies will play out as the future unfolds. Yes, there are some clues, as you have mentioned, as to the nature of both the beast and the final Antichrist, but nothing that can yet be attributed to any particular person or organization.

What I do believe is that as the scenario unfolds, born again believers will understand what's going on and who is who. Many generations, since the new covenant writings, have thought themselves to be very near the end of the last days. Personally, I'm not convinced that the time of the end is yet that close that we can point to someone or organization that fits the bill.

As the Scriptures tell us, there will be many antichrists. We today, just like generations before, are living with those who deny Jesus is who and what he claimed to be. There have been some gestures made by the Catholic organization to accept that all religions should be accepted as valid and yes, this would be against Christ. Yes, yes, I readily agree that there are other groups of 'believers' who also are working to adopt such a stance, but the Catholic organization, if it did pursue this action, would be the largest of such.

All I will say is that we, born again believers, need to be watchful. Not trying to guess who or what will meet the Scriptural criteria, but rather, knowing when it happens what's going on.

There is coming a day when God will bring an end to this realm as we know it today. The Scriptures seem to be quite clear that shortly before that time there will be some clear signs that born again believers will see and recognize as the prelude to that day. Are those signs evident yet? I don't think so, but the groundwork for them is certainly being laid.

I'm of a mind that the things written about those days will not just come upon us with swift surprise, but will build up through a consensus of men's minds and deeds. We have certainly become more wicked overall. We have certainly come to a point where, as mankind, we adopt and accept wickedness and sin as pretty normal, and as Paul wrote to the Romans, we are giving more approval of such ways every successive generation. But, how bad will it get? I don't know, but I can see that it can get a lot worse.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted I wouldn't Agee more.... for now, Revelations is a book with enough mysteries and I hope that as time unfolds its real face, Christians will be aware.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Hi linet,

First off, you're mixing attributes of the beast with attributes of the final Antichrist. I don't think that makes for a sound thesis if your attempt, per the title, is to deny that the Catholic organization is or may be the final Antichrist. Of course, I'm not sure that the entire organization is ever supposed to be the final Antichrist, but merely a person. So, the question is really whether or not the final Antichrist will be a part of that organization?

I don't know and I won't be surprised in either case. That is, that the final Antichrist is or isn't part of the Catholic system. Quite frankly, I've often considered that the beast will be a part of the Catholic organization but not the final Antichrist. But again, I really don't know how the Scriptural prophecies will play out as the future unfolds. Yes, there are some clues, as you have mentioned, as to the nature of both the beast and the final Antichrist, but nothing that can yet be attributed to any particular person or organization.

What I do believe is that as the scenario unfolds, born again believers will understand what's going on and who is who. Many generations, since the new covenant writings, have thought themselves to be very near the end of the last days. Personally, I'm not convinced that the time of the end is yet that close that we can point to someone or organization that fits the bill.

As the Scriptures tell us, there will be many antichrists. We today, just like generations before, are living with those who deny Jesus is who and what he claimed to be. There have been some gestures made by the Catholic organization to accept that all religions should be accepted as valid and yes, this would be against Christ. Yes, yes, I readily agree that there are other groups of 'believers' who also are working to adopt such a stance, but the Catholic organization, if it did pursue this action, would be the largest of such.

All I will say is that we, born again believers, need to be watchful. Not trying to guess who or what will meet the Scriptural criteria, but rather, knowing when it happens what's going on.

There is coming a day when God will bring an end to this realm as we know it today. The Scriptures seem to be quite clear that shortly before that time there will be some clear signs that born again believers will see and recognize as the prelude to that day. Are those signs evident yet? I don't think so, but the groundwork for them is certainly being laid.

I'm of a mind that the things written about those days will not just come upon us with swift surprise, but will build up through a consensus of men's minds and deeds. We have certainly become more wicked overall. We have certainly come to a point where, as mankind, we adopt and accept wickedness and sin as pretty normal, and as Paul wrote to the Romans, we are giving more approval of such ways every successive generation. But, how bad will it get? I don't know, but I can see that it can get a lot worse.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted, the beast refers to the Papacy as it is a church/state entity (woman riding the beast), the antichrist refers to the Pope himself, the man of sin, the little horn. Interesting little factoid but Pope Francis has sent out 1000 emissaries for this year of Jubilee and given them Papal power for forgiving of sins previously only allowed by the Pope himself... possibly the many antichrists we read of.

 

[miamited]

Hi ECR,

Yes, I'm of a mind that the Catholic system may well be the beast spoken of in the final days. That the pope is the final Antichrist is possible, as I allowed, but I'm not solidly convicted of that yet. I am certain that born again believers will recognize him as he rises to power.

As to the 'many antichrists', it has always been my understanding that new covenant Scripture tells us that they will be with us always, so while they may certainly turn out to be antichrists, I don't think that their group is the subject of the Scripture's reference to the 'many antichrists'.

We will see as it unfolds. Our job is to be ready and expectant as these things come to pass. I'm ready!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

While I agree that there have been many antichrists throughout the churches history, all things culminate in the end times... all prophesy will have a final fulfillment in the end times. That's why I find this reference to 'antichrists', plural, to be interesting in light of the previously mentioned current events.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's unfortunate, then, that the context of "antichrists" mentioned in John's epistles refers rather specifically to heretical teachers who deny that Christ came in the flesh (Docetism), and therefore doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room to be insisting that they are, instead, "papal emissaries".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It's unfortunate, then, that the context of "antichrists" mentioned in John's epistles refers rather specifically to heretical teachers who deny that Christ came in the flesh (Docetism), and therefore doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room to be insisting that they are, instead, "papal emissaries".

-CryptoLutheran

Some one claiming to be able to forgive sins is anti Christ for only God can forgive sin. If I were to claim to be able to get you into heaven if you follow my teachings, would I be an antichrist? Was Jesus a teacher, then a false teacher is antichrist, Jesus was a shepherd to His flock, a false shepherd would be antichrist. I'm not sure where your narrow definition of antichrist comes from but it encompasses more than just denying Christ came in the flesh.

Edited to add: sorry ViaCrucis, didn't register your comment that John speaks of deniers of Christ's divinity as antichrists.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some one claiming to be able to forgive sins is anti Christ for only God can forgive sin. If I were to claim to be able to get you into heaven if you follow my teachings, would I be an antichrist? Was Jesus a teacher, then a false teacher is antichrist, Jesus was a shepherd to His flock, a false shepherd would be antichrist. I'm not sure where your narrow definition of antichrist comes from but it encompasses more than just denying Christ came in the flesh.

"When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" - John 20:19-23

Christ gave His apostles the authority to pronounce forgiveness of sins. Pastors still have this apostolic authority.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how every Lutheran pastor is the antichrist because we have both public and private confession of sins and absolution, and following confession the pastor will say something like,

"In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the +Son and of the Holy Spirit. Go in Peace."

I suppose if we just completely disregard Christ's explicit command to His apostles then we could conclude that no one can pronounce forgiveness of sins in Christ's name, except then the entire preaching of the Gospel becomes nothing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So I can forgive my wife's sins? Who determines who is worthy to do such work... anyone that passes seminary school and is given a flock? Seems like this is not what Jesus was referring to here.

Also, what does the passage you quoted mean when it says "if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"? Does this mean that they can refuse to forgive someone's sins? Did the apostles have the searching eye of the heart that God does to know who is sincere in their confession?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I can forgive my wife's sins? Who determines who is worthy to do such work... anyone that passes seminary school and is given a flock? Seems like this is not what Jesus was referring to here.

Speaking personally, I like the way Luther puts it,

"Fourth. The people of God, or holy Christians, are known by the keys, which they publicly use. Christ decrees, in Matthew 18:15 that if a Christian sins, he shall be rebuked, and if he does not amend his ways, he shall be bound and cast out; but if he amends, he shall be set free. This is the power of the keys. Now the use of the keys is two-fold, — public, and private. There are some whose consciences are so weak and timid, that even if they have received no public condemnation, they cannot be comforted unless they get a special absolution from the pastor. On the other hand, there are some who are so hard they will not have their sins individually forgiven and remitted even in their hearts and by the pastor.

Therefore the use of the keys must be of both kinds, public and private.

Now wherever you see the sins of some persons forgiven or rebuked, publicly or privately, know that God’s people is there; for if God’s people is not there, the keys are not there; and if the keys are not there, God’s people is not there. Christ has bequeathed them as a public mark and holy possession, whereby the Holy Ghost, won through Christ’s death, imparts holiness anew to fallen sinners and by them Christians confess that they are a holy people, under Christ, in this world; and those who will not be converted and made holy again are to be cast out of this holy people; that is, they are to be bound and excluded by means of the keys, as will happen to the Antinomians if they do not repent.

You must not think of these keys, however, as the pope’s two keys which he has turned into tools with which he picks the locks to the treasure chests and crowns of all kings. If he will not “bind” or rebuke sin either publicly or privately (and he will not!), then do you rebuke and “bind” it in your parish; and if he will not “loose,” or forgive it, then do you “loose” and forgive it in your parish. His “reserving” and “binding,” and his “relaxing” and dispensation make you neither holy nor unholy, since he cannot have the keys, but only lock-picking tools. The keys belong, not to the pope, as he lyingly says, but to the Church, that is, to Christ’s people, God’s people, the holy Christian people throughout the world, or wherever there are Christians. They cannot all be at Rome, unless the whole world were at Rome, and that has not happened yet. As Baptism, the Sacrament, and God’s Word do not belong to the pope but to the Church, so with the keys, they are claves ecclesia, not claves papae. Fifth . The Church is known outwardly by the fact that it consecrates or calls ministers, or has offices which they occupy. For we must have bishops, pastors, or preachers, to give, administer and use, publicly and privately, the four things, or precious possessions, that have been mentioned, for the sake of and in the name of the Church, or rather because of their institution by Christ, as St. Paul says, in Ephesians 4:11, Accepit dona in hominibus, “and gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and governors, etc.” The whole group cannot do these things, but must commit them, or allow them to be committed, to someone. What would happen if everyone wanted to speak or administer the sacraments and no one would yield to another? This duty must be committed to one person, and he alone must be allowed to preach, baptize, absolve, and administer the sacraments; all the rest must be content with this and agree to it. Wherever you see this, be assured that God’s people, the Christian, holy people, is present." - Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church

In brief: Christ has bestowed to His Church the office of the keys, the keys are for the whole Church, but Christ has called that some be evangelists, teachers, etc; so the Church calls and ordains pastors and invests them to administer the office of the keys. So that the ministry of the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are vested in the called and ordained pastor, for the good order of the Church. Those whom the Church, for good order, vest with the task and vocation of the preaching of the Word and the administering of the Sacraments, these are tasked with officiating the keys which Christ has given the Church through the Apostles, that whoever's sins are forgiven are forgiven, and whoever's sins are rebuked are rebuked. This the pastor does, on the Church's behalf, in the stead and by the command of Christ in fulfillment of His word, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven, and whoever's sins you retain are retained" and also "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations," for the preaching of forgiveness in Christ's name is Gospel, to the nations and to the Church.

-CryptoLutheran