What are we really dealing with here?

[APAK]

That does extend the bounds of it meaning (anti-Christ) although it is still correct by me.

 

[bbyrd009]

Isn't it a fairly recent event, calling the Bible 'The Word of God'?

ha, guess it depends whom you listen to, but that is my understanding, yes. Ppl for most of history have understood the concept of "giving their word," so i guess you gotta dumb a population down quite a bit before they will buy "reading Word," takes a lot of fluoride and aluminum, etc to the pineal gland i guess. Plus i guess this is complicated by the fact that the Bible is "God-breathed."
pineal gland catholic church - Google Search

 

[bbyrd009]

Ah, bbyrd009 and your one sentence remarks that are vague in the extreme.

my apologies. i would examine your premises at "Word," and compare them with what you already understand about giving your word--can you give your word in writing (kind of, maybe) etc, and let these guide you rather than some other human who has assumed a place of authority over you that God does not recognize. And by this i do not mean to give up mentors, or "fathers," but rather to understand that you get to pick who these ppl are, not some council or whatever (that is fading away)

the Bible certainly becomes much more accessible, although it sounds counter-intuitive. But fwiw your pastor almost surely knows this already, i have yet to catch more than maybe like 1 or 2 pastors in ten years by surprise with that stuff.

nothing wrong with starting out believing that the Bible is the Word imo; little kids think babies come from storks too, why correct either one i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

Now...could past antichrist spirits have fit various Popes, like we see Luther saying? Sure, maybe

gotta love the current pope, imo

 

[bbyrd009]

The amazing name Antichrist: meaning and etymology

 

[amadeus]

“How long, you simpletons, will you insist on being simpleminded? How long will you mockers relish your mocking? How long will you fools hate knowledge?” (Prov 1:22 New Living Translation)

The three categories are in an ascending order of wrong: simple ones, scorners, and fools. The fool is the worst category. The simple one does not want knowledge, (chooses to live in ignorance), the scorner mocks knowledge (because of his own lack of understanding), but the fool hates knowledge. Each category gets bolder and more active. In fact, the fool actively opposes truth.”

If this was supposed to address anything I posted, I missed it. Sorry!

 

[amadeus]

I'd like to think that Solomon is referring to non-essential secularism - would the wisest man ever discourage the study of prophecy or any other part of God's inspired Word? Probably not.

Study is something we do with the scriptures, but it is not the means in and of itself by which we receive the truth. If that were so then the smartest most diligent students would be the most often saved and living for God. No one here, I believe, is discouraging study of the scriptures. The Apostle Paul spoke of it here:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." II Tim 2:15

But notice the meaning of the words of that verse. They are not saying to study in order to learn, but to be approved by God. The study is done as I read it to be obedient. The learning comes here through the Teacher:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

Without the lead of the Holy Ghost, I do not believe that any one of us could ever get anything right according to God. An Einstein brain and 120 hours per week of Bible study would NOT do it.

Also, it's not right for ByGrace to arbitrarily decide that studying prophecy is outside the realm of seeking the kingdom and then argue so subjectively against the study of it, and seeking it without consulting the only Map that God left as a guide to lead us to it is probably not a good idea, in my opinion.

What is or is not within the realm of seeking the kingdom and righteousness of God is according to what has spoke to a person's heart. Is it always the same words with the same direction?

"For the body is not one member, but many." I Cor 12:14

If each of is, or is to be, a member of the Body of Christ, we are not all the same part with the same function. Our direction comes from the Head [Jesus] alone via the Holy Spirit that connects us all to Him. For you it may well be that God wants you to seek an understanding of what you call "prophecy" and share it with others, but it certainly not the role of each and every part of the Body, is that? God knows.

For @"ByGrace" it may well be that God has told her not to study what you call "prophecy". She must abide in her calling as you must abide in yours and I must abide in mine. The problem of course is some believers do not know very well what their calling is or if they do they may not have the words to explain it so everyone else can understand... but nevertheless:

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." I Cor 7:20

A man cannot correctly direct his own steps as a member of the Body of Christ, but if is yielded to and paying attention to the Head, he won't miss a turn, will he?

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" John 10:27

Who are His sheep?

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God' Matthew 4:4 KJV

And where exactly is God's mouth located?

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matt 11:15

 

[amadeus]

So, if we use this logic and argument today, how can a ‘person’ called ‘the antichrist’ be such a surprise to the believer? It may not be a person at all. It may be a false system of collective lies, or a combo of both.

Whether it is a person or a system, or both, the answer I have today (can change tomorrow) is because many professing Christians are not true believers. They believe what they have been taught especially in their ‘churches;’ a false Christ and other mystical vague or unknowable mysteries of truth. The true Christ was taught yesterday and today by the Holy spirit of God, not by the thoughts of men .

APAK

Even so! Give God the glory and let Him lead us!

 

[amadeus]

Isn't it a fairly recent event, calling the Bible 'The Word of God'?

People have taken what is written and twisted it to their own ways since before Moses was even able to read the words to them the first time he came down the mountain with the stone tablets written by the finger of God. That was according to men's timing about 3500 years ago. They were twisting then but when did they start to name it the "word of God". My Bible first shows that expression here:

"And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God." I Sam 9:27

That may have been five hundred years after Moses

I do not believe that Samuel was going to show Saul anything written on stone or on scrolls. He was going to tell him what God has to say [not written at the time].

Now in most places we have ready access to written Book called the Bible, which many call the Word of God.

We can study the scriptures [the Bible] and find many references to the Word of God, but even if all the Bible [66 books or 72 books] were written as inspired by God that does not mean that the inked words on the pages are alive as they stand in the written unopened book. The message of God may well always be there within them, but can anyone who reads them understand them? No! To me that means either they are Not the Word of God or they are but a lot of people are blind and deaf to the message that God has had written. Giving the Book the title, The Word of God, will cause confusion because so many will read it without understanding...

That Word that is certainly Alive is the One described by this verse:

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11

 

[bbyrd009]

But I do think scripture gives evidence for a final one

i get the perspective here, and i can only suggest that Scripture was written this way intentionally, so as to serve many purposes. You only have one soul, that may also be understood personally as "the final one." Of course Scripture must speak to us as a nation also, and for all i know you are dead-on here, but i suspect we will be pointlessly "staring up at the sky" waiting for it tbh. Christ is revealed in you iow. At least i can say that it doesn't hurt to toggle your perspective reading Scripture; i certainly would never state for a fact that this will not happen someday in the future, as much as i doubt it now

note how this perspective of "final one" could also be applied to any corporate entity, google comes to mind. Organized around "don't be evil," they have largely been perceived to have failed the test or "trial," etc.

so "Great Tribulation" as we usually define it now could mostly be a way to avoid personal responsibility, perhaps

 

[APAK]

Even so! Give God the glory and let Him lead us!

You are correct...he is control....thanks for the advise

 

[Harvest 1874]

Um...am I worshiping the Pope, or the Roman Catholic 'system'? So...don't think I am deceived.

The Great Harlot (the apostate church) consist of more than just the Mother system (Catholicism) it likewise includes her “daughters” (Protestantism), therefore if you are a member of any of the Protestants sects you are still deceived, and even if you are not, if you hold to any of their erroneous teachings you are still being deceived by the Antichrist.

But....let us take a step back a look at the bible passages that talk about Antichrist.
1 John 2:18: Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
1 John 2:22: Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

John tells us that while many (plural) antichrist have come, there is a (singular) antichrist to come. Then he says that the antichrist is the one who denies the Father and the Son, denies that Jesus is the Christ. As far as I know, the RCC and the Pope do not deny these things.

My point is only this: we do not know, yet, who this final antichrist is. We will know him (or it) when he denies God, denies Jesus and tries to take God's place, demanding to be worshiped. Until we see these signs, judging people and organizations and slanging around rather steep accusations.

Now...could past antichrist spirits have fit various Popes, like we see Luther saying? Sure, maybe. We see the antichrist spirit everywhere in the world. North Korea, Nazi Germany, Communist China under Mao, perhaps some of the Popes who used their power over the people. But both 1 John and 2 Thess 2 suggest that there will be a final, and most dreadful rising of this AC spirit, and I expect it will expand beyond just a country or denomination. It will be worldwide.

If is evident here that a proper understanding of the term “Antichrist” needs to be examined.

“The name "Antichrist" has a twofold significance.

The first is against (i.e., in opposition to) Christ.

The second significance is instead (i.e., a counterfeit) of Christ.

In the first sense the expression is a general one, which would apply to any enemy opposing Christ. In this sense Saul (afterward called Paul), and every Jew, and every Mohammedan, and all the Pagan emperors and people of Rome, were antichrists—opposers of Christ. (Acts 9:4) But it is not in this sense of the word that the Scriptures use the name Antichrist. They pass over all such enemies, and apply the term Antichrist in the sense of its secondary meaning, viz.—as in against, in the sense of misrepresenting, counterfeiting, taking the place of the true Christ.

Thus John remarks, "Ye have heard that THE Antichrist shall come. Even now there are many antichrists." (1 John 2:18, 19)

The Greek distinguishes between the special Antichrist, THE antichrist and the numerous lesser ones. And John's subsequent remarks show that he does not refer to all opposers of Christ and the Church, but to a certain class who, still professing to be of the Christ body, the Church, had left the foundation principles of the truth (Heb 6:1, 2), and were therefore not only misrepresenting the truth, but were, in the eyes of the world, taking the place and name of the true Church--hence really counterfeiting the true saints.

John says of these, "They went out from us, but they were not of us:" they do not represent us, even though they may deceive themselves and the world on this subject. In the same epistle John declares that those he mentions as many antichrists have the "spirit" of THE Antichrist.

Here, then, is what we should expect, and what we do find in Papacy: NOT an opposition to the name of Christ (in the sense of denying him), but an enemy or opponent of Christ in that it falsely bears his name, counterfeits his kingdom and authority, and misrepresents his character, plans and doctrines before the world--a most baneful enemy and opponent indeed—far worse than an outspoken foe. And this is true, be it remembered, even though some of those connected with that system are conscientiously astray--"deceiving and being deceived."

What does it imply to have the “spirit” of the Antichrist?

There are various aspects to this, but we would say the chief sign of this spirit is the tendency or desire to be chief amongst the Lord’s people, to lord it over those entrusted to one’s care (1 Pet 5:3) This spirit is referred to as the spirit of the “Nicolaitans” and or its equivalent the “Balaamites” the struggle for power, lordship. It did not take long for the great Adversary to plant seeds of evil in the church. These were already evident in the apostles’ days. In their epistles, the authors allude to several of these apostates (or antichrist). Some of those thus named were Diotrephes (3 John 9), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), and Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17).

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work…” 2 Thess 2:7

The name Nicholas means "lord over the people" and may well indicate the spirit of this "mystery of iniquity."

This spirit began to rise in the early stage of the Church during the Ephesus stage, but was for the most part held in check by the Apostles, note Rev 2:6:

"But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate", unfortunately as soon as the apostles “sleep”, i.e. died and were off the scene this spirit began to run ramped, and so we read in Rev 2:15 during the Pergamos stage, “Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”

It was during the first century that a clergy class began to develop, taking on near dictatorial powers in the supervision of their followers. This spirit would continue to grow and develop and eventually manifest itself in the great Antichrist system known as the Papacy.

 

[brakelite]

The amazing name Antichrist: meaning and etymology

That is an excellent explanation of the meaning of Anichrist. And it fits the Papal church in every respect...all its doctrines...all its dogmas...its entire mindset is one of displacing Christ from His rightful position as Lord of Lords and King of kings. Just as the original picture in the thread reveals.

 

[Naomi25]

i get the perspective here, and i can only suggest that Scripture was written this way intentionally, so as to serve many purposes. You only have one soul, that may also be understood personally as "the final one." Of course Scripture must speak to us as a nation also, and for all i know you are dead-on here, but i suspect we will be pointlessly "staring up at the sky" waiting for it tbh. Christ is revealed in you iow. At least i can say that it doesn't hurt to toggle your perspective reading Scripture; i certainly would never state for a fact that this will not happen someday in the future, as much as i doubt it now

note how this perspective of "final one" could also be applied to any corporate entity, google comes to mind. Organized around "don't be evil," they have largely been perceived to have failed the test or "trial," etc.

so "Great Tribulation" as we usually define it now could mostly be a way to avoid personal responsibility, perhaps

Actually, I agree with you, mostly, here. While I think there will be a final manifestation of the AC, I don't know that I think it has to be an individual person. In fact, the more we understand about how utterly implausible it seems that all people will be able to unite under a single person, the more it suggests to me, at least, that we could be looking at a government, or technology, or something. But I'm not sure that it matters what form it will come in. That it seeks to draw people away from God, persecute those already connected to him, and seek out adoration and worship for itself...to me...seems the big points made in scripture.

 

[brakelite]

If there was anything in Babylon worth saving, God wouldn't destroy it. The Bible describes modern spiritual Babylon as an entity filled with demons. There is nothing worth saving there. There is nothing good, correct, godly, or acceptable there. All the doctrines of antichrist are false because, by their very nature, they replace Christ. When we speak of the RCC having a correct view of the Son of God...a correct view of the trinity...a correct view of the basics of salvation...if you believe any of that, then you too are deceived. Either you do not understand what they truly believe, or you believe what they believe and are also in error.

 

[Naomi25]

my apologies. i would examine your premises at "Word," and compare them with what you already understand about giving your word--can you give your word in writing (kind of, maybe) etc, and let these guide you rather than some other human who has assumed a place of authority over you that God does not recognize. And by this i do not mean to give up mentors, or "fathers," but rather to understand that you get to pick who these ppl are, not some council or whatever (that is fading away)

the Bible certainly becomes much more accessible, although it sounds counter-intuitive. But fwiw your pastor almost surely knows this already, i have yet to catch more than maybe like 1 or 2 pastors in ten years by surprise with that stuff.

nothing wrong with starting out believing that the Bible is the Word imo; little kids think babies come from storks too, why correct either one i guess

Snort! Sorry about that! It's just that sometimes it's hard to know what your point is, or if you're even talking to me...or the other person, or if you're for the point, or against it! It's so hard to get the idea when it's only a single sentence!

So...I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I follow you here. What has 'giving my word' and letting it guide me got to do with scripture? What has a 'human who has assumed a place of authority' have to do with it either. I'm not following. Sorry.

And...there's nothing wrong with "starting out believing that the Bible is the Word"? Are you saying that, once you get along a bit, that it isn't? Because, there, my friend, we come up against a wall...hard. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, what on earth are you following? Who on earth are you following? What on earth is the basis of your faith? And if you say all you have/know comes from the HS alone, please insert the biggest eye roll from me.

gotta love the current pope, imo

Mmmm. He's fairly left. And...well...as much as I normally don't have much quibbles against Catholic people in general, the Pope is someone I question. The mouthpiece of God? Please. If I pop on a bed sheet and find a throne, can I make that claim too? Where does he get that authority? There's nowhere in scripture, that I can see, that gives one particular man that authority. Jesus came to break down the wall that divided man and God. We don't need a mouthpiece...we have Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To me, that makes the power and wealth the upper echelons the Catholic church demands just a little suspect.

 

[Harvest 1874]

If this was supposed to address anything I posted, I missed it. Sorry!

It was in response to the quote you made on post #63 viz.

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Ecc 12:12

It was NOT to be taken as a personal attack upon you my friend, merely a statement in response to the quote.

 

[APAK]

The amazing name Antichrist: meaning and etymology

I'm a little tired today for some reason..stumbling over my words a bit...

I checked out/scanned the link you posted. I would be cautious in swallowing the entire article as the truth.

Just reading the concept of being anointed and applying it to Christ..
It says: "Christ or Messiah (same word but in Hebrew) was never meant to be used exclusively for Jesus (the word משיח, mashiah, occurs forty times in the Old Testament). A follower of Jesus is someone who operates according to the principle of being anointed, that is: having no earthly superior. "

Now what is wrong with these words? ".. operates according to the principle of being anointed..." + having no earthly superior. " The words do itch the ears don't they. It is a lie.

The article is using deceptive logic to equate a follower of Christ as being a type of Christ; well one can deduce this idea.

Are you a Messiah, anointed with a special service of God, like working for a King? Of course not. We are moved to do God's will and to grow fully into Christ. We are the bride of Christ. The article suggests we are much more... little Christs, or Messiah(s) running around.

Jesus is the Messiah for God, the only one, not just because he was set aside to complete the plan of salvation for mankind, he was also given the POWER of God in 'full' and given increasing authority that he possessed today....

I rest my case....

There's more in this article I disagree with .....

APAK

 

[Harvest 1874]

“Without any desire to treat lightly the opinions of others, we nevertheless feel it necessary to point out to all a few of the absurdities connected with the common view concerning Antichrist, that thereby the dignity and reasonableness of the truth on this subject may be properly estimated, in contrast with the narrow claim that all which the Scriptures predict concerning this character will be accomplished by someone literal man.

This man, it is claimed, will so charm the whole world that in a few short years he will secure to himself the homage and worship of all men, who will be so easily imposed upon as to suppose this man to be God, and, in a rebuilt Jewish temple, to worship him as the Almighty Jehovah. All this is to be done at lightning speed--three and a half years, say they, misinterpreting the symbolic time, even as they misinterpret the symbolic "man."

Tales of fiction and the most absurd imaginations of childhood furnish no parallel to the extreme views of some of God's dear children who are stumbling over a literal interpretation of Paul's language, and thereby blinding themselves and others to many precious truths, which, because of the error on this subject, they are unprepared to see in an unprejudiced light. No matter how much we may sympathize with them, their "blind faith" forces a smile as they seriously tell over the various symbols of Revelation which they do not understand, misapplying them literally to their wonderful man. In this, the most skeptical age the world has ever known, he will, they claim, in the short space of three and a half years, have the whole world at his feet, worshiping him as God, while the Caesars, Alexander, Napoleon, Mahomet and others sailed through bloody seas and spent many times three and a half years, without accomplishing the one thousandth part of what is claimed for this man.

And yet those conquerors had all the advantages of dense ignorance and superstition to aid them, while today we live under conditions most unfavorable to such a development of deceit and fraud: in a day when every hidden thing is being manifested as never before; in a day when fraud of the sort claimed is too preposterous and ridiculous for consideration. Indeed, the tendency of our day is toward a lack of respect for men, no matter how good, talented and able, or what offices of trust and authority they may occupy. To such an extent is this true, as never before, that it is a thousand times more likely that the whole world will deny that there is any God, than that they will ever worship a fellow human being as the Almighty God.”

 

[Naomi25]

The Great Harlot (the apostate church) consist of more than just the Mother system (Catholicism) it likewise includes her “daughters” (Protestantism), therefore if you are a member of any of the Protestants sects you are still deceived, and even if you are not, if you hold to any of their erroneous teachings you are still being deceived by the Antichrist.

Oh, I get it. So if I don't belong to whatever it is that you do, then I'm part of the Antichrist system. So...which particular cult do you belong to? You've just outright admitted you don't belong to any of the Orthodox Churches. That leaves...well...the cults. JW's? SDA? Mormons?

If is evident here that a proper understanding of the term “Antichrist” needs to be examined.

“The name "Antichrist" has a twofold significance.

The first is against (i.e., in opposition to) Christ.

The second significance is instead (i.e., a counterfeit) of Christ.

In the first sense the expression is a general one, which would apply to any enemy opposing Christ. In this sense Saul (afterward called Paul), and every Jew, and every Mohammedan, and all the Pagan emperors and people of Rome, were antichrists—opposers of Christ. (Acts 9:4) But it is not in this sense of the word that the Scriptures use the name Antichrist. They pass over all such enemies, and apply the term Antichrist in the sense of its secondary meaning, viz.—as in against, in the sense of misrepresenting, counterfeiting, taking the place of the true Christ.

Thus John remarks, "Ye have heard that THE Antichrist shall come. Even now there are many antichrists." (1 John 2:18, 19)

The Greek distinguishes between the special Antichrist, THE antichrist and the numerous lesser ones. And John's subsequent remarks show that he does not refer to all opposers of Christ and the Church, but to a certain class who, still professing to be of the Christ body, the Church, had left the foundation principles of the truth (Heb 6:1, 2), and were therefore not only misrepresenting the truth, but were, in the eyes of the world, taking the place and name of the true Church--hence really counterfeiting the true saints.

John says of these, "They went out from us, but they were not of us:" they do not represent us, even though they may deceive themselves and the world on this subject. In the same epistle John declares that those he mentions as many antichrists have the "spirit" of THE Antichrist.

Here, then, is what we should expect, and what we do find in Papacy: NOT an opposition to the name of Christ (in the sense of denying him), but an enemy or opponent of Christ in that it falsely bears his name, counterfeits his kingdom and authority, and misrepresents his character, plans and doctrines before the world--a most baneful enemy and opponent indeed—far worse than an outspoken foe. And this is true, be it remembered, even though some of those connected with that system are conscientiously astray--"deceiving and being deceived."

What does it imply to have the “spirit” of the Antichrist?

There are various aspects to this, but we would say the chief sign of this spirit is the tendency or desire to be chief amongst the Lord’s people, to lord it over those entrusted to one’s care (1 Pet 5:3) This spirit is referred to as the spirit of the “Nicolaitans” and or its equivalent the “Balaamites” the struggle for power, lordship. It did not take long for the great Adversary to plant seeds of evil in the church. These were already evident in the apostles’ days. In their epistles, the authors allude to several of these apostates (or antichrist). Some of those thus named were Diotrephes (3 John 9), Demas (2 Tim 4:10), and Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17).

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work…” 2 Thess 2:7

The name Nicholas means "lord over the people" and may well indicate the spirit of this "mystery of iniquity."

This spirit began to rise in the early stage of the Church during the Ephesus stage, but was for the most part held in check by the Apostles, note Rev 2:6:

"But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate", unfortunately as soon as the apostles “sleep”, i.e. died and were off the scene this spirit began to run ramped, and so we read in Rev 2:15 during the Pergamos stage, “Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”

It was during the first century that a clergy class began to develop, taking on near dictatorial powers in the supervision of their followers. This spirit would continue to grow and develop and eventually manifest itself in the great Antichrist system known as the Papacy.

Well, you have it all worked out then, don't you?