1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How Many Antichrist Objects in 1 John 2:18?

Discussion in 'Eschatology & Prophecy Forum' started by veteran, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. One, "many antichrists" only

    28.6%
  2. One, "antichrist" only

    14.3%
  3. Two, "antichrist" and "many antichrists"

    57.1%
  4. None

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208
    And the original Antichrist is the main... denier of God, because he said he's going to be... God, and worshipped in place of God! (Isaiah 14:12-15). The devil is the coming Antichrist our Lord Jesus and His Apostles were warning us about. That's why in Revelation our Lord Jesus associated the title of "dragon" with that coming false one (Rev.12:7-9; Rev.13:11-17; Rev.16:13; Rev.20:2).


    Yes, I can tell you where God's Word declares a 2nd beast as a specific individual coming, appearing with two horns like a lamb, but speaking as a dragon. It's written in Rev.13:11 about the "another beast". Obviously, the word "another" means a different beast than the first one mentioned in Rev.13:1.

    Rev 13:11-13
    11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
    12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    (KJV)

    Pretty easy to know that when "another beast" is mentioned separate from a "first beast", that a 2nd one is being declared! It's not only Scripturally correct, but reading using common sense. So someone duped away from that simplicity really does show how blinded they are with the doctrines of men.

    And who were we told is the "dragon" per Scripture? The devil himself, per Rev.12:9 and Rev.20:2. That's so easy a little child can figure that out!
     
  2. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    Once again you side stepped the question! The question was " Can you show us one verse that says antichrist is a world leader or false Christ?" We all know the reason. Obviously your answer would be no. So once again you continue to spew unproven doctrine built in the absence of sound hermeneutics.

    But that isn’t what I asked, is it? So once again you sidestep the questions you can’t answer per Scripture and spew doctrine. Allow me to quote what I said and the question I asked. “I can show where God’s inspired word tells us beasts are kingdoms(see dan7:23) and history proves it true with Daniel’s lion beast being Babylon, the bear Medo-Persia, and the leopard being Greece. Can you show us where God’s inspired word tells us a beast is the antichrist? No you can’t all you can do is spew unproven doctrine.” I suspect if you could, you would have addressed the question I asked, but instead you chose the decptive tactic of trying to make it appear as if you are answering the question when in reality you are sidestepping the question and confusing the issue. Deceptive tactics won't prove your point or help your credibility. So unless you can show where the inspired word of God changes that definition I see no reason to believe that a beast in prophecy will not be a kingdom.
    You might consider taking that issue up with someone that does not recognize Rev13 is speaking about two beasts. It is clear one is from the sea the other the earth. Once again this is only you trying to use deceptive tactics to make it appear that I fail to recognize both beasts . Just because I disagree with your interpretation about these beasts does not mean I fail to recognize there are two beasts. Your deceptive tactics grow wearisome!

    Why don't you try taking that up with some one who does not believe the dragon is satan. Are you capable of sticking to the issue or must you continue with the deceptive tactic of debating things that weren't said (or believed, I do believe that the dragon is satan it's your interpretaion of prophecy I disagree with) so you can make it look like the other person is in error?

    I believe we are done, discussion with one who resorts to decptive tactics only shows how desperate they are to stand by a doctrine.






    "God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.
     
  3. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208
    You're about the biggest 'sidestepper' on this matter that I've ever seen! Has Satan confused you so much that you cannot even admit... that he's Christ's no.1 enemy?!? How could you be so deceived away from that Truth?

    What Paul revealed in 2 Thess.2:3-4 and our Lord Jesus in Rev.13:11-17 about the "another beast" individual are STRONG proofs of a particular coming false one! Why do you continue to willingly deny those Scriptures as written?!?
     
  4. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2

    Go back and read your reply in post 21. You clearly sidestepped my request to provide a verse that changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to the antichrist. Instead you replied with a doctrinally based argument that cannot be proven. Why not quit side stepping the issue? Provide the verse if you can, not a doctrinally based argument.



    I am not deceived by Satan, nor do I deny that Satan is clearly the enemy of Christ as you falsely insinuate. As we can all see it is satan that gives the beast his seat power and authority (Rev13:2). I believe the Scriptures it is your faulty interpretation that I disagree with!


    I do not deny the Scriptures. It is the fallacy you continue to promote even though it has been proven to be in error that I have a problem with. I believe anyone reading this thread can see that.

    My friemd if you would put a fraction of the effort into understanding the views others hold as you do defending your doctrine you might be surprised by the result.
    "God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.


    As you are led friend, as you are led!
     
  5. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208


    You're telling a huge LIE. I not ONLY... provided you Scripture proof, but I well documented the difference with the Scripture referring separately to a "first beast"!


    Rev 13:11-18
    11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
    12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
    15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
    (KJV)






    All I can say then, is that English must be another language for you, as also you also must struggle with basic math.

    Because in English when "another beast" is mentioned separate from a "first beast", that means 2 beasts. (The first beast of Rev.13:1 comes up out of the "sea", but the "another beast", a 2nd beast, comes up out of the "earth"! That should have given you a clue also.

    I hate to sound like I'm insulting your intelligence, but I know your confusion is not about intelligence; it's about listening to men's doctrines.





    You're dreaming.




    Men's doctrines are easy to understand, and they're also easy to disprove per God's Word. It's because they're made up only of 'fragments' of Scripture, never coming to the whole Loaf of Bread. As believers on Christ Jesus, we all are to speak the same things. Our 'own' personal views mean absolutely nothing! It's God's view per His Word that matters.

    And if we were to refer to traditional Bible understanding about the subject of antichrist, then how I have understood it is also the very same views which the early Church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries also had, while your view on it from 'others' is not. Yet I don't have to rely on the early Church fathers about it like you're relying on 'others' with your view, 'others' that only came up with the false idea of no singular antichrist since the 17th century.
     
  6. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2


    Maybe you could show us where I lied. Oh that’s right I haven’t once again this is just another of your baseless accusations. A sad tactic employed by one who cannot provide a verse he claims to have provided. I asked you to show a verse that redefines a beast as the antichrist. Nothing in the verses from Rev13 you continue to quote tells us a beast is the antichrist. Just because you interpret those verses that way does not mean those verses redefine a beast as the antichrist, nor do they prove your interpretation correct.



    Once again may I remind you as I clearly stated in reply23 earlier in this thread Rev13 does discuss 2 beasts, the first rising out of the sea and the second coming out of the earth. So once again we can all see that you either don’t bother reading what others actually write in there replies or you are resorting to the deceptive tactic of trying to make it look like someone is denying there are 2 beasts when they aren’t. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that in this case you chose to reply without taking the time to read and understand what I wrote in reply23 where I said “You might consider taking that issue up with someone that does not recognize Rev13 is speaking about two beasts. It is clear one is from the sea the other the earth. Once again this is only you trying to use deceptive tactics to make it appear that I fail to recognize both beasts . Just because I disagree with your interpretation about these beasts does not mean I fail to recognize there are two beasts. Your deceptive tactics grow wearisome!”


    Let’s be honest that is exactly what you are trying to do. It is sad to see that because you cannot prove your point with Scripture you resort to tactics like this. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Maybe some day you will learn to have an honest discussion based on the merits of the views with out feeling the need to resort to personal attacks.


    Why because I base my belief on what Scripture actually says rather then follow the doctrine you espouse. I believe a beast is a kingdom and can actually show where God’s inpired word tells us a beast is a kingdom (see Dan7:23) and history proves God’s word true. On the other hand you insist a beast is the antichrist, but fail to show a verse that actually states that. Or could it be because I base my opinion on antichrist and antichrists on what Scripture actually says? Doesn’t Scripture tell us that antichrist is a spirit or anyone who denies Christ/God and there are many? Doesn’t Scripture tell us the antichrist whereof ye have heard should come is a spirit and it was already in the world when John wrote the verses? If you want to insist John was referring to a singular in antichrist in the end because in 1John2:18 he said “as ye have heard antichrist shall come” and that he didn’t tell us exactly who/what this was in1John4:3 then maybe you could show us where we are told about the antichrist he said was the one we heard should come in 1John4:3. Can you do that?


    And as I have demonstrated many times antichrist are spirits or those who deny Christ/God and there are many that have been in the world since John wrote the verses. I have also shown where God’s inspired word actually states that a beast is a kingdom, and history proves God’s word true. On the other hand you insist one of the beasts of Rev13 is the antichrist but fail to show a single verse that gives a beast as the definition of antichrist. You also insist 1john2:18 is saying there will be a singular antichrist in the end because he said ”as ye have heard antichrist shall come”. If John was not referring to the antichrist that we have heard shall come in 1John4:3 when he said “this is that spirit of antichrist ye have heard should come, and even now already is it in the world. Then you should be able to show where in Scripture we heard this. Can you do that?


    Christ warned us to be careful when it comes to traditions.
    Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye
    Considering that I can positively prove my view on antichrist or antichrists based on what Scripture actually says without relying on doctrinally based arguments I am confident that I have not fallen into that trap. You on the other hand must rely on doctrinally based arguments to justify your belief that 1John2:18 is referencing a singular antichrist in the end. To do so requires you ignore what John told us in 1John4:3. You must also rely on traditionally taught doctrines to justify your belief that a beast is the antichrist, where as my belief that a beast is kingdom is based on the definition God’s inspired word provides in Dan7:23 and history proves true.

    How many Jews stood in front of Christ and denied who He was because they relied on traditional teaching (granted some but not all were given the spirit of slumber) about the prophecies concerning His first advent? Have we learned nothing from their mistake? Should we let traditional understanding trump the word of God so we can cling to tradition? Are you 100% sure that it isn’t you that are making the mistake of following traditionally taught doctrine and as a result making the word of God of none effect?

    Just out of curiosity who’s view is it from the 17[sup]th[/sup] century that you believe I am following? Or is this just another false assumption on your part about what someone else believes?

    As you are led friend, as you are led!
     
  7. Retrobyter

    Retrobyter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,756
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Shalom, brothers and sisters.

    Happy Resurrection Day!

    I consider the first day of every week a holiday ("holy day"), just as Shabbat, the day of rest (also a "holy day"), is the last day of every week!

    If this keeps up, EVERY day will be a holiday! Hmmm.... Sounds like the New Earth, doesn't it?

    Anyway, Veteran, I believe that Ridgerunner is just trying to get you to see that "Antichrist" is a MISNOMER for the "Beast" of Revelation 13. It's just the WRONG WORD! I know that the Beast is commonly called the "Antichrist," but that's not a biblical name for him. We should just refer to him as the "Beast" and get used to it that way.

    It may be true that 2 Thess. 2 is about the "Beast" of Revelation 13. They DO have similar characteristics; so, it might be possible that they are the same thing. However, 2 Thess. 2 ALSO does not use the word "Antichrist."

    Get that point of communication out of the way first and THEN see where you go with whether you agree or disagree with Ridgerunner.

    HAVE A GREAT DAY!
     
  8. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208


    Since the Rev.13:11-17 Scripture is about a specific entity, a person, even per the English grammar, to say it is not is to tell a lie. And since that Scripture distinguishes that specific person separate from the "first beast" which is a kingdom per Rev.13:1-2, that is also what makes your interpretation of it a lie.

    There's no way to interpret the 2nd beast of Rev.13:11-17 as a kingdom, especially since it contains a direct reference to the "first beast" marking the separation.


    Rev 13:11-18
    11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
    12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
    13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
    14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
    15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
    (KJV)

    That is about a specific individual, which Ridgerunner flat denies, because of the doctrines of men he's listening to. There is no way... to interpret a kingdom out of that, since that 'he' takes power and rules in sight of the "first beast" which is a kingdom per the Rev.13:1-2 verses, and the Rev.12:3-4 verses.


    Even back in the previous Rev.12 chapter, we were shown about that "dragon"...

    Rev 12:7-12
    7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
    8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
    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.
    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."
    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.
    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.
    (KJV)


    verses his beast kingdom of old and first casting down... when he first rebelled against God...

    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)

    That was Satan, the "dragon", originally being cast down to the earth at his ORIGINAL rebellion against God. The Rev.12:7-17 verses are about his future casting down to this earth. That's the specific event the Rev.13:11-17 Scripture is revealing.


    Satan has many titles per God's Word. Antichrist is simply another one of his many titles. It's that simple.

    If you'll read back in Ridgerunner's posts, you'll discover he flat denies any idea... of a particular false one coming in our near future to cause apostate worship. So it's not just about his doctrine from men of trying to glue only to the word "antichrist" put for everything else besides that 'dragon' that is to come in our near future.
     
  9. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    No one is denying that Rev13:11 is not speaking about a specific or single entity. It is your interpretation of what this entity is that is being questioned. While you insist it is person we can see from fulfilled prophecy that per the inspired word of God a beast is a kingdom. If you want to ignore this fact so you can justify believing a beast is aperson that is your choice. As for me I believe sound hermeneutics require that we use the definitions God's inspire word provides. Is God the author of confusion? Why would he change the definition of a beast from a kingdom to a person between Rev13:2 and Rev13:11? Can you show us where that definition changed? Oh that's right it's not in Scripture, just your doctrine. As you are led friend as you are led!
     
  10. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208

    The idea of a 'brute beast' nature applied to the "workers of iniquity" is an early Old Testament revealtion, which is where... the 'beast' symbol in Revelation orginates!


    2 Pet 2:10-15
    10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
    11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
    12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
    13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
    14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
    15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
    (KJV)

    Jude 1:4
    4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
    (KJV)

    Jude 1:10-12
    10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
    11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
    12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
    (KJV)


    It all goes back to this...

    Gen 3:14-15
    14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
    (KJV)


    And this...

    Matt 13:37-40
    37 He answered and said unto them, "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
    38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
    39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
    40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."
    (KJV)

    Now the question is, just who... is the original 'beast' that caused rebellion against God?

    EASY!, as a little 2nd grader raises their hand and says, "It's the devil, the lowly beast of the field assigned to crawl upon its belly, that old serpent, Satan!"

    True, true, little 2nd grader!! Amazing how God has revealed this to 'babes' and kept it from the seeming wise!


    I'm serious. Many little children have less difficult time understanding this than you do.
     
  11. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    LOL I actually show a verse that supports my belief that beast as used in the figurative language of prophecy that describes literal events positively states that beasts are kingdoms and history proves God’s word true. (see Dan7:23) Yet you insist that a beast is the antichrist even though not a single verse actually states this, then you pull verse after verse from Scripture using them out of context to support your view. None of which demonstrate that a beast is the antichrist. Do you really believe that the definition of a beast changed from Rev13:2 to Rev13:11? And then once again you resort to personal attacks by questioning my intelligence and calling me a second grader. LOL I believe we can all see the desperate lengths you are willing to go to defend a doctrine that has been proven to be in error.

    "God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.

    Like I have said before if you would spend a fraction of the time actually studying and taking the time to learn why others hold the view they hold as you do trying to defend your doctrine you might be surprised by the result. Be blessed my friend,as you ared, as you are led!
     
  12. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208
    The very first Bible lesson on the 'beast' symbol applied to something other than a literal animal of the field...


    Gen 3:1-5
    1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'"
    2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die:
    5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
    (KJV)

    Gen 3:14-15
    14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
    (KJV)



    And now... the REAL IDENTITY of that 'snake' 'serpent' that deceived Eve...

    Rev 12:9
    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.
    (KJV)

    That's how... the "brute beast" nature began; it began with the devil himself. That's why he also is a symbolic 'beast' and a symbolic "serpent", low in the dust crawling upon its belly. And his kingdoms are 'beast' type kingdoms, because they serve him.

    I didn't call you a second grader. I allegorized how even a second grader can understand the simplicity of all this, pointing to how you refuse to.
     
  13. Retrobyter

    Retrobyter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,756
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Shalom, veteran.

    Isn't it interesting that what you just said is BACKWARDS from what the Scriptures said? Being a stickler for details, notice which is said to be which: the great dragon (the huge lizard or reptile) IS that old serpent (that original snake) called the Devil (which means Slanderer) and Satan (which means Enemy or Courtroom Opponent). The word "beast" (Hebrew: "chayat" = "living-creature") simply means "animal."

    So, read them again:

    Gen. 3:1
    1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any animal of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'"
    KJV


    Rev. 12:9
    9 And the huge lizard/reptile was cast out, that original snake, called the Slanderer, and Enemy, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
    KJV


    And, if it's not clear enough in Rev. 12:9, try Rev. 20:2-3:

    Rev. 20:2-3
    2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
    3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
    KJV


    So, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Which came first, the snake or the Devil? The SNAKE was first and THEN the snake was called the Slanderer or the Devil and the Enemy or Satan! For the sake of theology, particularly angelology, things get switched around so that things can be put in their nice, cozy, little boxes, but IS IT THE TRUTH?!

    Why does it have to be a symbol? Why can't it just be the LITERAL CREATURE, the "ORIGINAL SNAKE?!" THINK ABOUT IT!

    Shalom, veteran.

    Just as a side note, did you know that the "saaraaf" ("seraph") can be found in more places than just Isaiah 6:2, 6? The Hebrew word (or its plural form) is also found in Numbers 21:6, 8; Deuteronomy 8:15; Isaiah 14:29; and Isaiah 30:6! It is called a "fiery serpent" in the KJV, which is what Mosheh (Moses) put on the pole as a brazen snake! Thus, when Isaiah 6:2-6 says,

    Isa 6:2-6
    2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
    3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
    4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
    5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.
    6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
    KJV


    These snakes also have "feet" and "hands," as well as six wings, more like a dragon or a lizard/reptile or a form of dinosaur might have! And, why not? Every legend and myth has its roots in some truth!
     
  14. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208

    I see you're deceived as to the identity of "that old serpent" of Genesis! The serpent of Gen.3 was NOT a literal snake!

    Rev 12:9
    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.
    (KJV)

    Rev 20:2
    2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
    (KJV)


    God was NOT talking to a literal snake in Gen.3. It was NOT a literal snake that deceived Eve. God was talking directly to Satan with Satan AS... "that old serpent" of Genesis! The serpent in Genesis is a euphamism for the devil.


    Naturally it would have meant a real literal snake in Genesis 3, IF... Christ had not revealed in Rev.12:9 and 20:2 that Satan was really "that old serpent" that deceived Eve. Thus, we are not to be deceived about the real identity of that old serpent of Genesis.



    Because the Hebrew word 'saraph' of later Scripture (like "fiery serpent" of Num.21:8) can also mean an angelic being like in Isaiah 6:2 when Isaiah saw a Heavenly vision, that should reveal to you all the more how God used that as a symbol for Satan as "that old serpent" per Rev.12:9.

    But the word for "serpent" in Genesis 3 is NOT... 'saraph'. It's simply Hebrew 'nachash', i.e., a snake, and is used symbolically for Satan like Rev.12:9 and 20:2 does reveal.


    Therefore, Satan as "that old serpent" of Gen.3 is pointing to how God symbolically applied the snake as a 'beast' cursed above all animals of the field, lowly to crawl upon its belly in the dust, directly to Satan himself. That's a very fitting association for Satan because of what he did against God in wanting to be God. And because of those who follow "that old serpent", they also were labeled as serpents and vipers (asps) by our Lord Jesus and John the Baptist...

    Matt 23:29-33
    29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
    30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
    31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
    33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
    (KJV)

    Matt 3:7
    7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
    (KJV)

    And thus the locust army of Rev.9 have tails like serpents, but "faces of men" per Rev.9:7.
     
  15. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    Everyone reading this thread can see what you said. Denying it won't change the truth. Remember when you point your accusing finger at others three of your own fingers point back at you. You can continue insultimg me and accusing me of following the doctrines of men when I have shown Scripture to support what I say. We can all see the double standards tactics you use when you resort to quoting men such as Irenaeus, Hyppolytus and Terullian (see post 61 Mark of the beast thread), when you cannot provide a single verse that says antichrist is a singular end time world leader. So just who is that follows the doctrine of men?
    Doesn't Scripture tell us that antichrist is a spirit or anyone that Denies Christ/God and that there are many that have been in this world since John wrote the verses? Doesn't John tell ust that "this is that spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard should come and even now already is it in the world"? (Didn't the KJV translators add spirit to that verse?) Yet you insist this is the one he was referring to when he said "as ye have heard antichrist shall come". If that wasn't the one he was referring to then maybe you could show us what antichrist they heard shall come he was referring to!

    1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
    1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
    1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
    2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

    I'll stick with what Scripture actually says friend believe as you are led friend, as you are led!!
     
  16. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208

    But you are not... sticking with Scripture as written, because 1 John 2:18 contains a singular tense "antichrist" clause in its first part, which also links with the specific false one of 2 Thess.2 and Rev.13:11-17. The spirit of... antichrist is about antichrist's spirit that influences his servants, the "many antichrists". It silly to even attempt to deny the non-existence of a singular antichrist even by that "spirit of antichrist" phrase!

    Once again, just 'who'... is that spirit of antichrist from???

    The antichrist, singular.
     
  17. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    Once again just because I disagree with the doctrine you espouse does not mean my belief is not Scritural. If this isn’t the singular antichrist John was speaking of when he said in 1John4:3 “this is that spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard should come; and even now already is it in the world” then maybe you could enlighten us and show us where they heard the one from 1John4:3 was coming? Book chapter and verse please?

    Per your unproven interpretation. All you have provided to justify your belief is a doctrinally based argument built in the absence of sound hermeneutic principles.Nothing in 2Th tells us this man is your singular antichrist or even a world leader etc….

    Oh yes that’s right according to your interpretation which throws sound hermeneutic principles out the window so you can say a beast is a kingdom in Rev13:2 but just 9 verses later you change the definition of a beast so you can force Scripture to fit your doctrine. Isn’t that rather confusing? Is God the author of confusion?

    Shall we assume you refer to Satan? If so the question really shouldn’t be who, but is it future as you claim or has it/he been here since John wrote the verses or probably even long before? So how long has this one you keep pointing your finger at been around? How can one that has been around since before John wrote the verses still be future?
     
  18. veteran

    veteran New Member

    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    208

    If you're determined to bow in false worship to that coming false messiah, then I say, have a good trip! but you're not going to deceive others here about that coming event by trying to mock my coverage of the Scriptures about it as written.
     
  19. Ridgerunner

    Ridgerunner New Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    2
    Once again you have sadly resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the issues. In 1John4:3 John said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world". If this wasn't the antichrist John was referring to when he said "as ye have heard antichrist shall come" then maybe you could show us where they heard of this one from 1John4:3. Of course we know you can't because to do so you would have to admit that this is your singular antichrist from 1John2:18. Like I said I'll keep you in my prayers it saddens me to see you resorting to double standards and personal attacks because you are so intent on proving your doctrine you fail to address the actual issues. As you are led friend, as you are led!

    "God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.
     
  20. tgwprophet

    tgwprophet New Member

    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have not sseen it here, But has anyone here opened discussion about thee cover page for Newsweek? It depicts Obama with a halo. That halo represents a rainbow adopted as a sign for a queer. This cover was in light of the passage of rights for queers to marry. (Sorry, I do nt condone calling them "gay" anymore than I condone the use of a rainbow or use of a halo.) Although, for me, Obama does not likely qualify as the anti-christ, however, it is not a possibility I will rule out entirely. This new light Newsweek magizene shed by this cover does open up more possibilities, at least to me.

    With all the construction going on by our government, instead of enacting laws protecting, promoting and defending queers... our government should instead build more closets.
     
Loading...