Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)

[ewq1938]

I know. They are speaking of the same period but in two different ways.

I think they are two separate periods that are basically 3.5 years each. Both take place before the war against Christians (Rev 12:17) which is known as the tribulation. The two beasts have only 42 months (3.5 years) in order to be in power.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.


Here only the Son was targeted. The dragon did not target the woman yet. She fled to a safe place before he tried.


Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.



Here a war in heaven takes place, the dragon loses and is cast to the Earth and is banned from heaven.


Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


In the earlier verses the dragon went after that newly born son, and not the woman. Here we are reminded that the woman gave birth to that son and now instead of targeting the son, he targets the woman because the son is unavailable (is in heaven).

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Rev 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.


There was no flood the first time, nor did the dragon even go after the woman. The details do not match and must be separate events from the first time the woman fled to safety.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.



The dragon went to make war in heaven the first time, but this time he doesn't because he can't. He is not allowed in heaven again, and his attempts against the woman (the first time he has tried) has been thwarted so his only target left are the remnant of her seed and this new Earthly war.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Thanks! Yours is certainly no slouch either, Sis. I'll bet I could pick out an even nicer one for you, though. You have a slightly vexed look about you - lol.

There are tons of shots to choose from, way more nice ones than for Don Knotts.

.

Let me see if I can find a picture of my mother. The left one cut my mother in two! I found the right one of me. I seem to have the same expression as my avatar.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I think they are two separate periods that are basically 3.5 years each. Both take place before the war against Christians (Rev 12:17) which is known as the tribulation. The two beasts have only 42 months (3.5 years) in order to be in power.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.


Here only the Son was targeted. The dragon did not target the woman yet. She fled to a safe place before he tried.


Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.



Here a war in heaven takes place, the dragon loses and is cast to the Earth and is banned from heaven.


Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


In the earlier verses the dragon went after that newly born son, and not the woman. Here we are remined that the woman gave birth to that son and now instead of targeting the son, he targets the woman because the son is unavailable (is in heaven).

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Rev 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.


There was no flood the first time, nor did the dragon even go after the woman. The details do not match and must be separate events from the first time the woman fled to safety.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.



The dragon went to make war in heaven the first time, but this time he doesn't because he can't. He is not allowed in heaven again, and his attempts against the woman (the first time he has tried) has been thwarted so his only target left are the remnant of her seed and this new Earthly war.

There are not THREE 3.5 year periods. Remember the last half is in chapter 13.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I've one more to throw at you that might be of help. It's related to the subject in Ezekiel 31 about the great nations idea.

Rev 12:3-4
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
KJV

1. per Rev.12:9 and Rev.20:2, the "dragon" is another title for Satan.

2. that kingdom above has only "seven crowns", whereas the the beast kingdom of Rev.13:1 for the end is to have "ten crowns".

3. that above event time of that beast kingdom above with "seven crowns" is associated with the time when that "red dragon" (Satan) drew one third of the angels ("stars") to earth in rebellion with him.

4. that rebellion happened in the previous world, prior to Adam and Eve.

5. because that beast kingdom with "seven crowns" existed at the time that Satan drew a third of the angels to earth, in the previous world time, it means the Ezekiel 31:6 idea of "under his shadow dwelt all great nations" was literally about a previous world-wide beast kingdom upon the ancient earth which Satan rebelled with. And that was a long time prior to the day that God formed Adam in His Garden.

6. that old world, before Satan rebelled, was not a time of man in the flesh. It was a time when the angelic dwelt upon the earth, with Satan exalted. At Genesis 1:1 is when God made His 'perfect' creation, a time before Satan rebelled against Him. Sometime after Genesis 1:1 Satan coveted God's Throne and rebelled. Genesis 1:2 is actually a description of the earth in a waste condition, from God having ended that old world He first created perfect. (See Jeremiah 4:23-28, and Romans 8:18-25).

Last night I realized for the first time that I was thinking the Antichrist was featured in chapter 12, but the dragon is the devil. The beast doesn't appear until chapter 13.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I think they are two separate periods that are basically 3.5 years each. Both take place before the war against Christians (Rev 12:17) which is known as the tribulation. The two beasts have only 42 months (3.5 years) in order to be in power.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.


Here only the Son was targeted. The dragon did not target the woman yet. She fled to a safe place before he tried.


Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.



Here a war in heaven takes place, the dragon loses and is cast to the Earth and is banned from heaven.


Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


In the earlier verses the dragon went after that newly born son, and not the woman. Here we are remined that the woman gave birth to that son and now instead of targeting the son, he targets the woman because the son is unavailable (is in heaven).

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Rev 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.


There was no flood the first time, nor did the dragon even go after the woman. The details do not match and must be separate events from the first time the woman fled to safety.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.



The dragon went to make war in heaven the first time, but this time he doesn't because he can't. He is not allowed in heaven again, and his attempts against the woman (the first time he has tried) has been thwarted so his only target left are the remnant of her seed and this new Earthly war.

I made a copy of this and will print it off to study in bed tonight. Thanks.

 

[BarneyFife]

Let me see if I can find a picture of my mother. The left one cut my mother in two! I found the right one of me. I seem to have the same expression as my avatar.

Get outta town!!

You're a doll, Sis!

(Almost as handsome as my wife! )

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Let me see if I can find a picture of my mother. The left one cut my mother in two! I found the right one of me. I seem to have the same expression as my avatar.

You can see her when you click on the image.

And I can see where you got your looks from.

My mom was a heartbreaker. I don't know what happened to me.

.

 

[ewq1938]

There are not THREE 3.5 year periods. Remember the last half is in chapter 13.

There are 3. Two are in Rev 13, one in Rev 13. There is no "last half". Rev 13 is the full tribulation, 42 months.

 

[MatthewG]

Many people who look to the past, see Nero as being the beast in Revelation 13. However many people also disagree with that, but that is where one has to go seek out in history. There was a man whos number was 666, and those who had wisdom would figure out who it was. I personally believe it was Nero, he did a lot of damage between between the trading of Roman and Jerusalem; instating a mark and even religous pharisees of that day teamed up with Rome. Killing their own brothers and sisters; if they did not claim Nero as Lord. I believe this was slow release of Gods wrath on the nation by use of Rome.

A whole lot of history to investigate. Which is hard, for anyone to research especially with the comforts of today.

Was reading earlier Ezekiel 5-9, and its amazing to see all these terrible things that was said to come upon Israel which the LORD would make happen from, the sword, pestilence, famine. These things reminds me of what Jesus said on the mount of olive speaking to his four disciples who came privately to him and asked about when the end of the age would be?

 

[The Light]

Last night I realized for the first time that I was thinking the Antichrist was featured in chapter 12, but the dragon is the devil. The beast doesn't appear until chapter 13.

And yet chapter 13 occurs in Revelation 6 as does chapter 14.

 

[Hobie]

The Antichrist isn't one Pope. It's impossible for one individual within one short period of modern time to meet all the criteria that scripture provides by which we may accurately identify the Antichrist. So you really suppose that God has left His dearly beloved church to rely on guesswork and clairvoyance in order to identify their greatest enemy bar Satan? I ask that because that is what the modern church is relying on.. Futurism is guesswork. It offers nothing by way of truth and scriptural foundational principles as evidence to identify anyone. My pays above regarding the ministry of Christ are but a brief introduction... Which you already are arguing with.

Here is a good article on Martin Luther and what he believed..
"Luther himself credited John Huss with being the first to call the pope an Antichrist. 6 Huss did indeed consider the Pope to be the Antichrist, 7 but he was not the first to do so, nor was his mentor, John Wycliffe, although Wycliffe8 and at least some of his Lolland followers, including Sir John Oldcastle, 9 held this belief. This idea also circulated among the Waldensians, the Albigensians, and the Fraticelli, a group of Franciscans with more regard for the rule of St. Francis than for papal authority. 10 But even earlier than that, back in 991, Bishop Arnulf of Orleans, describing papal murder, lust, and intrigue, asked, “Are there any bold enough to maintain that the priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their law from monsters of guilt like these . . .?” When a person so deficient in virtue sits on the papal throne, Arnulf suggested that he must “be the ‘Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God.’”11 Martin Luther was probably unaware of the previous attacks on the papacy when, in 1517, he drafted his 95 Theses. If he had been, he would have been unsympathetic. At the time he regarded John Huss as a heretic. 12 His target was not the papacy; it was a greedy Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel who was distorting Catholic doctrine by exaggerating the benefits of indulgences. 13 Luther had no intention of splitting the church: he was only trying to protect his parishioners. 14 Enraged, Tetzel made sure that Rome knew what was happening. This set in motion a chain of events that led to a summons for Luther to appear before a papal representative. It also led to a theological attack on Luther’s position by Sylvester Cardinal Prierias, the papal court’s chief theologian. Prierias wrote, “He who does not accept the doctrine of the Church of Rome and pontiff of Rome as an infallible rule of faith, from which the Holy Scriptures, too, draw their strength, is a heretic.” Furthermore, “Whoever says that the Church of Rome may not do what it is actually doing in the matter of indulgences is a heretic.”15 Prierias had transformed the debate from a question of procedure to one of authority.

Responding to the papal summons, Luther traveled to Augsburg to appear before a papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, who demanded that Luther recant. When Luther asked for scriptural reasons to do so, none were given him...First Hesitant Steps Luther had read Prierias’ assertions of papal infallibility and had experienced Cajetan’s reliance on tradition, refusal to discuss Scriptures, and implicit threats of force. Now he began to consider the possibility that these men might be serving Antichrist. On December 18, 1518, he wrote to Wenzeslaus Link, soon to replace Stanpitz as the head of the Augustinian order in Germany, asking him to evaluate, on the basis of some of his writings, whether he was right in his suspicion “that the true Antichrist mentioned by St. Paul reigns in the court of Rome . . . .” 17 A few months later Luther wrote to his friend and former student Georg Spalatin, chaplain and secretary to Elector Frederick of Saxony, telling him that he had been studying papal decretals in preparation for the upcoming disputation at Leipzig. He added, “Confidentially, I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or his apostle, so miserably is Christ (that is, the truth) corrupted and crucified by the Pope in the decretals.” 18 In July, 1519, at the Leipzig debate with Johann Eck for which Luther had been preparing, Luther took the position that both popes and church councils could err. Now, for Luther, “[e]verything stood under the judgment of scripture.” 19 He would soon be using Scripture to pass judgment on the Pope. Two things that Luther read the following year weakened his hesitation about calling the Pope Antichrist. First, in February, 1520, he read Lorenzo Valla’s demonstration that the Donation of Constantine—the basis for Rome’s “claim to supremacy over the Western world” 20 —was a forgery. This seems to have inspired another letter to Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more that the Pope really is the Antichrist . . . because everything so exactly corresponds to his life, action, words, and commandments.” 21 After reading Valla’s treatise, Luther, hesitantly at first, began to publicly say what he had previously written privately to friends.basis for Rome’s “claim to supremacy over the Western world” 20 —was a forgery. This seems to have inspired another letter to Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more that the Pope really is the Antichrist . . . because everything so exactly corresponds to his life, action, words, and commandments.” 21 After reading Valla’s treatise, Luther, hesitantly at first, began to publicly say what he had previously written privately to friends....." ...https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1166&context=jats

 

[Hobie]

Hmm, here is from a surprising source of Martin Luther's conviction on this...
"Luther came to think of the pope as the Antichrist because, first, of what the general tradition was about where to find the Antichrist. The Antichrist was someone subverting the Church from within. That was the expectation popularly. And when he saw the papal office and read the histories and saw it subverting the gospel as he understood it, he became convinced that that was the proof that the papal office was the office of the Antichrist, trying to destroy God's church from within.

The pope claimed to be Christ's representative on earth. Luther became convinced that the pope was the devil's representative on earth. And that took graphic form very early in the Reformation ... with one of the most effective pieces of propaganda in the early Reformation: a series of 26 woodcuts that juxtaposed some action in Christ's life with something in the papacy. Christ carrying his cross to be crucified; the pope being carried in his throne on the backs of people ... . Christ washing the feet of the disciples; the pope having his feet kissed. And over and over again, scenes from Christ's life juxtaposed with scenes from the papacy. ... Christ was always humble and serving; the papacy, the pope was always lordly and [lording] over others. Christ is Christ; the pope is Antichrist.

At the end of his life, Martin Luther decided he had to issue his final testament against all the enemies of the gospel. And he published treatises, he encouraged people, but words were not sufficient. He also had to use images... And another that shows the German emperor lying on the ground with the pope with his foot on the emperor's neck, which shows, once again graphically, Luther's belief that the papacy was trying to control secular authority throughout the world. These were all actions of the Antichrist, and Luther wanted to make it clear what he thought of the pope".... Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Hobie]

Here is a list I came across of Pre-Reformation and Reformers Interpretations:

Date Name Reference Interpretation

c. 1310 Dante Alighieri
Rev. 17 Harlot=Roman Church

c. 1331 Michael of Cesena
Rev. 17 Harlot/Antichrist=Roman Church, Pope

c. 1345 Johannes de Rupescissa
Antichrist, Rev. 17 Babylon, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Roman church


c. 1350 Francesco Petrarch
Rev. 17 Harlot=Papal Court

c. 1367 John Milicz
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin=Papacy


c. 1379 John Wycliffe
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn. Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot=Pope/Papacy


c. 1388 Matthias of Janow
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Hierarchy/Papacy


c. 1390 John Purvey
Antichrist, Rev. 13 666, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy


c. 1393 Walter Brute
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin=Papacy/Bishop of Rome/Papacy

c. 1412 John Huss
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy


c. 1497 Girolamo Savonarola
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

Reformation Era Interpretations:

1522 Martin Luther
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1543 Philipp Melanchthon
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 Andreas Osiander
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1554 Nicolaus von Amsdorf
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1558 Johann Funck
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1560 Virgil Solis
Antichrist, Little Horn, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1570 Georg Nigrinus
Antichrist= Pope

1572 David Chytraeus
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin= Papacy

1530 Johann Oecolampadius
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1557 Heinrich Bullinger
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 William Tyndale
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1545 George Joys
Antichrist, Little Horn=Papacy

1554 Nicholas Ridley
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1553 Hugh Latimer
Antichrist=Papacy

1582 Thomas Cranmer
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

1550 John Bale
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1562 John Jewel
Antichrist, Abomination of Desolation, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast=Papacy

1587 John Foxe
Antichrist, Man of Sin=Bishop of Rome

1563 Anglican Formulas
Antichrist=Papacy

1547 John Knox
Antichrist, Little Horn=Church of Rome/Papacy

1593 John Napier
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 13 1st Beast, Rev. 17 Harlot, Rev. 17 Babylon
Rev. 17 Beast =Pope/Papacy/Latin Empire

1614 Thomas Brightman
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Pope/Papacy

1618 David Pareus
Antichrist, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Beast=Pope/Papacy

Sir Isaac Newton
Antichrist, Little Horn, Man of Sin, Rev. 17 Harlot
Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy

John Wesley
Man of Sin. Rev. 17 Harlot. Rev. 17 Babylon=Papacy also Antichrist

And they ask the question, "In view of the foregoing Reformation interpretations identifying Papacy as the Antichrist and Man of Sin, why do so many Evangelical Protestants today believe the Man of Sin and Antichrist are future individuals?".... Reformation Views

 

[Timtofly]

Ezekiel 28 I already know about. Here is something to think about that I just thought of. Did the Garden of Eden originate on earth at creation? Or did the garden and the trees originate in heaven and God brought it down to earth and put Adam and Eve in it as their first home? It's no longer on earth now but in heaven.

Only Adam was placed into the Garden. Eve came later, after a period of time. Eve was taken out of Adam.

 

[amigo de christo]

You can see her when you click on the image.

And I can see where you got your looks from.

My mom was a heartbreaker. I don't know what happened to me.

.

Be encouraged barney at least you never have to face the loss of what you didnt have . We getting older anyway .
outward beauty is fleeting and lasts but for a time . ITS THOSE WHO KNOW JESUS , that is all that matters my friend.

 

[amigo de christo]

Here is a good article on Martin Luther and what he believed..
"Luther himself credited John Huss with being the first to call the pope an Antichrist. 6 Huss did indeed consider the Pope to be the Antichrist, 7 but he was not the first to do so, nor was his mentor, John Wycliffe, although Wycliffe8 and at least some of his Lolland followers, including Sir John Oldcastle, 9 held this belief. This idea also circulated among the Waldensians, the Albigensians, and the Fraticelli, a group of Franciscans with more regard for the rule of St. Francis than for papal authority. 10 But even earlier than that, back in 991, Bishop Arnulf of Orleans, describing papal murder, lust, and intrigue, asked, “Are there any bold enough to maintain that the priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their law from monsters of guilt like these . . .?” When a person so deficient in virtue sits on the papal throne, Arnulf suggested that he must “be the ‘Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God.’”11 Martin Luther was probably unaware of the previous attacks on the papacy when, in 1517, he drafted his 95 Theses. If he had been, he would have been unsympathetic. At the time he regarded John Huss as a heretic. 12 His target was not the papacy; it was a greedy Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel who was distorting Catholic doctrine by exaggerating the benefits of indulgences. 13 Luther had no intention of splitting the church: he was only trying to protect his parishioners. 14 Enraged, Tetzel made sure that Rome knew what was happening. This set in motion a chain of events that led to a summons for Luther to appear before a papal representative. It also led to a theological attack on Luther’s position by Sylvester Cardinal Prierias, the papal court’s chief theologian. Prierias wrote, “He who does not accept the doctrine of the Church of Rome and pontiff of Rome as an infallible rule of faith, from which the Holy Scriptures, too, draw their strength, is a heretic.” Furthermore, “Whoever says that the Church of Rome may not do what it is actually doing in the matter of indulgences is a heretic.”15 Prierias had transformed the debate from a question of procedure to one of authority.

Responding to the papal summons, Luther traveled to Augsburg to appear before a papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, who demanded that Luther recant. When Luther asked for scriptural reasons to do so, none were given him...First Hesitant Steps Luther had read Prierias’ assertions of papal infallibility and had experienced Cajetan’s reliance on tradition, refusal to discuss Scriptures, and implicit threats of force. Now he began to consider the possibility that these men might be serving Antichrist. On December 18, 1518, he wrote to Wenzeslaus Link, soon to replace Stanpitz as the head of the Augustinian order in Germany, asking him to evaluate, on the basis of some of his writings, whether he was right in his suspicion “that the true Antichrist mentioned by St. Paul reigns in the court of Rome . . . .” 17 A few months later Luther wrote to his friend and former student Georg Spalatin, chaplain and secretary to Elector Frederick of Saxony, telling him that he had been studying papal decretals in preparation for the upcoming disputation at Leipzig. He added, “Confidentially, I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or his apostle, so miserably is Christ (that is, the truth) corrupted and crucified by the Pope in the decretals.” 18 In July, 1519, at the Leipzig debate with Johann Eck for which Luther had been preparing, Luther took the position that both popes and church councils could err. Now, for Luther, “[e]verything stood under the judgment of scripture.” 19 He would soon be using Scripture to pass judgment on the Pope. Two things that Luther read the following year weakened his hesitation about calling the Pope Antichrist. First, in February, 1520, he read Lorenzo Valla’s demonstration that the Donation of Constantine—the basis for Rome’s “claim to supremacy over the Western world” 20 —was a forgery. This seems to have inspired another letter to Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more that the Pope really is the Antichrist . . . because everything so exactly corresponds to his life, action, words, and commandments.” 21 After reading Valla’s treatise, Luther, hesitantly at first, began to publicly say what he had previously written privately to friends.basis for Rome’s “claim to supremacy over the Western world” 20 —was a forgery. This seems to have inspired another letter to Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more that the Pope really is the Antichrist . . . because everything so exactly corresponds to his life, action, words, and commandments.” 21 After reading Valla’s treatise, Luther, hesitantly at first, began to publicly say what he had previously written privately to friends....." ...https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1166&context=jats

Its been a harlot under influence of Anti christ since even the days of constantine when it merged as one with state .

 

[amigo de christo]

Only Adam was placed into the Garden. Eve came later, after a period of time. Eve was taken out of Adam.

And the church came from CHRIST . LET THE LORD BE PRAISED .
But beware timtofly , do beware , this latter huge church age all inclusive false love unity merger as one
IT COMETH NOT OF CHRIST nor the Church but rather of ANTI CHRIST and its seduction .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

There are 3. Two are in Rev 13, one in Rev 13. There is no "last half". Rev 13 is the full tribulation, 42 months.

The Great Tribulation is 7 years.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Only Adam was placed into the Garden. Eve came later, after a period of time. Eve was taken out of Adam.

But she was in the Garden too with Adam otherwise she couldn't have seen the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Many people who look to the past, see Nero as being the beast in Revelation 13. However many people also disagree with that, but that is where one has to go seek out in history. There was a man whos number was 666, and those who had wisdom would figure out who it was. I personally believe it was Nero, he did a lot of damage between between the trading of Roman and Jerusalem; instating a mark and even religous pharisees of that day teamed up with Rome. Killing their own brothers and sisters; if they did not claim Nero as Lord. I believe this was slow release of Gods wrath on the nation by use of Rome.

A whole lot of history to investigate. Which is hard, for anyone to research especially with the comforts of today.

Was reading earlier Ezekiel 5-9, and its amazing to see all these terrible things that was said to come upon Israel which the LORD would make happen from, the sword, pestilence, famine. These things reminds me of what Jesus said on the mount of olive speaking to his four disciples who came privately to him and asked about when the end of the age would be?

God has given us paradigms that repeat themselves. For instance Nero was the second Antichrist type person, the first being Antiochus IV Epiphanes, both defiled the temple in the middle of a Jewish revolt. It doesn't surprise me that Israel is at war and right on time.

Seeing as you are a preterist, how do you explain that the oceans still have whales and all manner of life in them. The prophecy that every living thing in the ocean dies has not been fulfilled as you think.