Is "the Antichrist" teaching a fable?
- Thread starter genny
- Start date
-
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!
Didn't you say in an earlier post tha the two horned beast is islam? Yet beholdthebeast uses Scripture and history to prove islam is the leopard bear and lion beast of Revelation. You might also read the articles on the man of sin and antichrist as they clearly disagree and prove the view you espouse is incorrect!
revturmoil
New Member
A friend of mine owns it and I am a moderator (different user name) at their forum.
revturmoil
New Member
Well I disagrre with that too!
But there is more that I do agree with than disagree with!
But since you're part of it and I am in disagreement with some portions of it I'll remove it!
I'm not in agreement with some things on the other sites I promote too! Should I remove them too?
revturmoil
New Member
I just removed it!
Like I said. I agree with most of it. But it seems not enough for me to want to keep it as a link. Maybe I disagree with it more than I think...so it's gone!
I like Walid and Ellis Skolfield too but don't always agree with them either!
Maybe you could show us exactly what you agree with from the beholdthebeast website. So far it appears that you view is entirely different concerning which beast is islam, what antichrists are, what the man of sin does, where the temple of God is etc...?
revturmoil
New Member
I removed it and thank you for helping me do so.
It's not important what I agree with on behold the beast. What matters to me is what the scriptures say and it was a mistake for me to promote the site.
If you're still having trouble understanding the words anti-christ and temple it's because you take some things literal that are meant to be symbolic. And you take some things that are symbolic and interpret them literally. You have an inability to decipher between the two.
The term "Antichrist" is not found in the book of Daniel. Nor is it found in the book of Revelation. Nor did Jesus speak of a coming "Antichrist". Nor did Paul referr to the man of sin; son of pertion as that of "the Antichrist".
Therefore, somebody along the line, whether it was Darby, or whomever, had to have added "the Antichrist" to the terms "man of sin" and "son of perdition" in 2nd Thess.2.
BTW, are you aware that Jesus called Judas Iscarot "the son of perdition"?
Could it be that the man of sin; son of perdition is not an individual man at all, but rather a nationality of "man"?
That seems to be the case, based on the scriptures of Danial and of Revelation 13 and 17.
The Catholic Counter Reformation - Futurism
The Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church. All the reformers’ studies pointed the finger directly at the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist power described in Daniel as the “little horn.”
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, answered Papacy’s call. Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast of Revelation.
He then developed the doctrine of futurism. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist.
In 1590 Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church. Antichrist, he taught, would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and who would rebuild Jerusalem.[sup]i[/sup]
Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God-asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther, and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.[sup]ii[/sup]
The result of [Ribera’s] work was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.[sup]iii[/sup]
Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of Rome (1542-1621). Between 1581-1593, Cardinal Bellarmine agreed with Ribera in his work Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of this Time.
The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.[sup]iv[/sup]
Through the work of these two clever Jesuit scholars, Jesuit futurism was born.
Dispensationalism and the Secret Rapture
As the doctrine of futurism was spreading across Europe, The much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister Edward Irving (1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, came onto the scene. Irving pastored the large Chalcedonian Chapel in London with over 1000 members.
When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man Antichrist ideas of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera. But Irving went a step further. Around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a secret rapture prior to the rise of the Antichrist.
In the midst of this growing anti-Protestant climate in England arose John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). A brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, Darby wrote more than 50 books on Bible subjects. A much-respected Christian and a man of deep piety, he took a strong stand in favor of the infallibility of the Bible in contrast with the liberalism of his day.
However, John Nelson Darby, like Edward Irving, also became a strong promoter of a pre-tribulation rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, his teaching has become a hallmark of dispensationalism.
John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular idea of removing Daniel’s seventieth week from its historical context in the time of Jesus Christ and applying it to a future tribulation after the rapture.
In spite of all the positives of his ministry, Darby followed Maitland, Todd, Bellarmine, and Ribera by incorporating the teachings of futurism into his theology. Thus, a link was created between John Nelson Darby—the father of dispensationalism—and the Jesuit Francisco Ribera—the father of futurism. Darby visited America six times between 1859 and 1874, preaching in all of its major cities, during which time he planted the seeds of futurism in American soil.
One of the most important figures in the spread of these false doctrines is Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a lawyer from Kansas who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible.
Found this information at the following link...http://amazingdiscoveries.org/RT_encyclopedia_Futurism_Jesuit_Ribera
That's just not true. During "the time of the end" the prophecies will have all come to fruition, whereby those living at the end of the age may recognize and link the prophecies to the proper place, the people, and events to which they apply.
For instance, take "Babylon the Great" that's described in Revelation 17 and 18.
It took a long period of time for AMERICA to evolve into BABYLON THE GREAT. Therefore, only we who are living today; during "the time of the end", can recognise that AMERICA has fulfilled and fits every description given of BABYLON THE GREAT.
DANIEL described America as well, for after all, Revelation and Daniel are the same prophecies, involving the same place, and the same people to which those prophecies apply.
Bottom line is that AMERICA is the suject of the prophetic scriptures, NOT the Jews and the nation of Israel.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
For the above verse to be true Babylon would have to exist from the time Cain slew Able until the very last person to be slain on this earth is slain. Babylon cannot be constrained by time or location. How can America contain the blood of all that were slain upon the earth if America did not exist while many of those slain on this earth were slain?
Well, I am all for cutting the pop culture fat that surrounds the end times, but as to the antichrist being a fable, let's see:
I 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.
John here is obviously referencing the common knowledge that the subjects of the letter would have had about the antichrist. Additionally, though not using the term antichrist, the same being is talked about in II Thessalonians 2:3 as well as in other places.
There are many antichrists plural, but very clearly from the above, there was also the knowledge that a singular antichrist is to come. The last days had already begun in the time of the Apostles. Many are uncomfortable with that because it doesn't fit it to a nice neat eschalogical box, but look at what the Scripture says.
I 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.
John here is obviously referencing the common knowledge that the subjects of the letter would have had about the antichrist. Additionally, though not using the term antichrist, the same being is talked about in II Thessalonians 2:3 as well as in other places.
There are many antichrists plural, but very clearly from the above, there was also the knowledge that a singular antichrist is to come. The last days had already begun in the time of the Apostles. Many are uncomfortable with that because it doesn't fit it to a nice neat eschalogical box, but look at what the Scripture says.
1John 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.
How could the above verse make any sense if the first use of the term antichrist were supposed to be an individual person as "The" "Antichrist", when six words later we learn there are many antichrists? This is the only verse of the 4 that use the term antichrist or antichrists that is generally construed to indicate a single individual as such. Let's develop our understanding by looking to another verse that also uses the term antichrist in a singular fashion:
1 John 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.
You can see the singular "that", "spirit", "it" in this sentence and singular "antichrist", just like the singular "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18. The translators gave us a little extra push in 1 John 4:3 by inserting the word [spirit] a second time, further clarifying that the spirit of antichrist is this singular entity. Now look at how this makes the "little children" verse make perfect sense if, when you get to the first use of term antichrist, you understand it as THE SPIRIT OF antichrist:
1John 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.
Finally look also at how beautifully parallel these two verse snippets are:
"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"
"ye have heard that it should come"
Even if there had been such a concept of a single antichrist in the Church, consider the wording: "ye have heard". Perhaps like "ye have heard that toads give people warts", but that doesn't mean that it's true.
Consider a similar verse:
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 4 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Clearly the antichrists (plural) spoken of in 1st and 2nd John, refers to anyone who doesn't believe that God came in the flesh of Jesus Christ. The term has no relevance whatsoever to the man of sin; son of perdition in Bible prophecy.
In the King James version of the Bible, the correct wording of 1stJohn 1:18 says,
"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."
It's amazing how that adding the word "the" in front of antichrist in that verse, can change the true meaning of the prophetic scriptures. And that is precisely what the false teachers have done and are doing, thus making it appear that the man of sin; son of perdition is a singular Antichrist spoken of in 1st and 2nd John.
But if you study 2nd Thess.2, and Daniel, and Revelation, you'll find that the son of perdition or man of lawlessness is not anti or against Christ at all, but rather against "all that is called God".
Paul wrote in 11Thess.2 that the man of lawlessness would oppose and exalt himself above "all that is called God".
So then, whom are the people that is "called God"?
In chapter 7, verse 24, Daniel described them as that of "the ten kings" out of the 4th kingdom upon the earth. And in Revelation 17:12 the ten kings are clearly a certain people that is upon Babylon the Great. In Revelation 13 John described them as that of "ten horns with crowns on them", ie a people with crowns on them.
Thus, it is "the ten kings", or "all that is called God" that the man of lawlessness opposes.
Not true..Babylon the Great did not have to exist from the time of Cain. It is described in Daniel 7:24 as that of "the fourth kingdom" upon earth, and headed by "the ten kings" or a people out of England and out of Europe.
Needless to say, AMERICA is that "BABYLON THE GREAT", and the European Americans are "the ten kings".
America has produced more Christian believers over the years, than have all of the other nations of the modern world. Since its founding many Christian Americans have died in battle...over 600 thousand in the Civil War alone. Thus the meaning of Rev.18:24 which says,
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
Can you show us where in Scripture people or the ten kings are called God? I thought Scripture tells us it is the Word that is called God.
Joh 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
The Scriptures are not in error Babylon contains the blood of ALL that were slain upon the earth. While America (with all her atrocities) may be a part of Babylon it is physically impossible for it to contain the blood of those slain before it’s existence.
We can’t force fit Scripture to our doctrine. Instead we should change our doctrine to fit Scripture.
It appears that you have missed that scripture says “all that were slain upon the earth.” If it says all then it would have to include the blood of Abel to the blood of the last person to be slain upon the earth as Ridgerunner has already pointed out. Therefore his statement “Babylon cannot be constrained by time or location” seems to be a correct statement concerning Rev 18:24.
"The ten kings" that are upon Babylon the Great in Rev.17:12, and in Daniel 7:24, represent a people of the ten tribes house of Israel; those that are "called by God's name".
Hense 2nd Thess.2:4 which says,
"the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above "all that is called God."
Let’s keep it Scriptural.
2Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not
come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
There is no proof that the ten kings upon Babylon represent a people of the ten tribes of the house of Israel. or that they are called by God's name.Besides the verse says "all that is called God" not God's name. Nor does any of this prove that America contains the blood of ALL that were slain upon the earth. Wasn't Abel slain upon the earth? How can America contain Abel's blood when America did not exist when Abel was slain? Simply put it can't.
If you want to understand Babylon you must first recognize she cannot be constrained by time or location or she could not contain the blood of ALL that were slain upon the earth.. If you want to understand the man of sin you must accept the verse as written without adding to it to justify a doctrine. May God bless your studies!
Similar threads
