The Criteria of Antichrist.

[CoreIssue]

The same can...and is...said for Dispensationalism. But that doesn't, and shouldn't, stop you from voicing your opinions here.
End Times doctrines are open-handed issues. We should be free to debate and discuss our thoughts on them.
You should be secure enough in your own to stand up under such debates. If you are not, that might be someone trying to tell you something.

I never told anybody to shut up.

 

[brakelite]

Meaning don't call me out for pushing my doctrine when it isn't biblical.

And claiming that the spirit that possessed Alexander the great will possess Antichrist, is biblical?

 

[CoreIssue]

And claiming that the spirit that possessed Alexander the great will possess Antichrist, is biblical?

The heads of the beast are The nations of the beast and statute and the crowns are the kings. One is killed but then healed. That is Alexander the great of Greece, the third beast and the belly of the statue.

And it most assuredly is biblical.

Revelation 16:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

The beast is the AC. The Dragon the statue of the AC Satan possesses. The false prophet demon comes out of the pit at mid trib.

 

[brakelite]

The heads of the beast are The nations of the beast and statute and the crowns are the kings. One is killed but then healed. That is Alexander the great of Greece, the third beast and the belly of the statue.

And it most assuredly is biblical.

Revelation 16:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

The beast is the AC. The Dragon the statue of the AC Satan possesses. The false prophet demon comes out of the pit at mid trib.

But what of pagan Rome, which emerged immediately after Greece was divided into 4, then 2, Ptolemy and Seleucus? The little horn does not emerge from Greece...it grows out of the 4th beast, Rome. I don't know where you are getting your views from, but they are very muddled. Those beasts were symbols of real literal empires, as were the heads and horns which grew from them. You recognise correctly that Greece was the silver belly, but then completely ignore pagan Rome, the "iron monarchy", as historians named it. To what purpose do you place the entire bottom half of the statue way off into the future, when all the details of the prophecy were fulfilled in the past, chronologically following on from the previous empires without gap in time? That the iron continues to our day is evident in the present existence of Papal Rome who inherited the characteristics of those previous pagan empires, Babylon, Meda-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The Antichrist is not Greek...its Roman. The little horn is Roman, as I explained in the earlier criteria. It was always Rome, and it can only be Rome.
The fourth beast in Daniel 7 is pagan Rome. The horn which grew from one of the four winds in Daniel 8 is Rome. That horn was the only horn of all those mentioned which had a different focus than others. For a time that horn conquered on a horizontal plane...pagan Rome conquering other nations. But then it had a change in character...it began to direct its efforts in a heavenly direction....papal Rome.
Thus far all the criteria I have presented, all Biblically accurate and historically verifiable, perfectly fit all the characteristics essential in identifying Papal Rome as the Antichrist. And I haven't finished yet, still 2 or more to go. When you find something that I present that you can prove wrong, either Biblically or historically, or you see something I write about the RCC that is incorrect, by all means bring it up. But stating unproven generalities like the above contributes very little to the conversation, but merely reveals your determination to resist learning, and your unreasonable and blind bias against my church.

 

[Naomi25]

Hi. First, let me explain something of my understanding of what the ecumenical movement is all about. Each different faith retains the own peculiar traditions and practices. In the long term, even Islam will join, but retain their own traditions. Except for one. Catholicism has at its core one particular doctrine that she considers imperative as a sign of her authority. All will eventually bow to papal authority, and it is in acceptance of this one doctrine that the Pope will give his approval. Sunday sacredness. It is this doctrine that the last 3 popes have been at great plains to get established throughout the world, particularly in Europe. Protestantism will enforce it through legislation, beginning in the US.
as for the other matter, individual Catholics are not Antichrist. Never will be. Antichrist is the system under which they are enslaved. It is the system that seeks to enslave the world. Global dominion has ever been the ambitious goal of Satan, and his masterpiece of counterfeit Christianity will accomplish it on his behalf.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some things here. While I can agree that the RCC has some unbiblical doctrines, and that the seat of the Papacy itself is concerning at the least, I think you are way off track with the Sunday sacredness thing.
And I'll tell you why...it's not just a knee-jerk reaction on my part because you are SDA. This is coming from someone who worships on a Sunday and is from a religion that worships on a Sunday. The thing you must understand is this: as Protestants, we don't worship on a Sunday because we hold the day to be "sacred"...to hold any power in symbolism, or any such thing. It's a rememberance thing. The Apostles started meeting "on the Lords Day"...as opposed to the Sabbath (on which they went to the Synagogues and attempted to sway their fellow Jews to Christ) because it was honouring the day that Christ rose from the grave. You see...because we have the freedom in Christ NOT to place such necessary weight on which day we gather and worship...that means that Sunday is but a choice for us. And if it's a choice, and not a mandate, it's not something we are likely to force on others. We ourselves often meet during the week, or on Saturdays as well. And while we don't agree with many of the doctrines of the SDA, we don't have any theological problem with you worshipping on a Saturday. Again, you have that freedom.
Now...the RCC may not recognize those freedoms, but they are a long, long way away from having the sort of pull they need to implement any sort of rule where people will be "forced" to worship on a Sunday. And I honestly can't see any logical or biblical reason they would, above and beyond the more important doctrines, decide their "sticking point" is Sunday worship.

 

[Naomi25]

I never told anybody to shut up.

Your disdain spoke for you.

 

[CoreIssue]

Your disdain spoke for you.

You mean my non-agreement displeased you

 

[brakelite]

The Apostles started meeting "on the Lords Day"...as opposed to the Sabbath (on which they went to the Synagogues and attempted to sway their fellow Jews to Christ) because it was honouring the day that Christ rose from the grave.

Who decides which day is the "Lord's Day"? And can you give me an example from scripture where the disciples met on the first day of the week as a memorial to the resurrection?

.because we have the freedom in Christ NOT to place such necessary weight on which day we gather and worship...that means that Sunday is but a choice for us.

That 'weight' you speak of...I have seen that in different terms. Some call Sabbath keeping a "burden". But one must remember that it isn't other Sabbath keepers demanding or placing any burden upon anyone. All we are doing is attempting to make others aware of the paucity of any real Biblical foundation for Sunday observance, and in this thread in particular, the actual roots of Sunday...and it wasn't from the apostles as the more recent "criteria" above regarding law, points out.

it's not something we are likely to force on others.

History unfortunately proves otherwise. When Sunday first came into effect in the 4th century as an official religious statute, Sabbath keepers were relentlessly persecuted by Rome. And even as recent as the pioneering days of the new world, the early pilgrims forced Sunday keeping upon the whole community of believers and folk were fined, jailed, and I believe flogged if they failed to attend church. These Sunday laws are called blue laws, and many states still have them on their books, albeit not forced today as they once were. In the meantime, what is important in discussing this issue is not what the apostles or disciples did or not do...nor what the church seeks to accomplish, but what does the scripture in reality actually say in regards the Sabbath. Has God removed the sacredness from the 7th day of the week, and therefore does the command to keep it holy remain valid? If not, we need to have excellent reasons for laying it aside being one of the commandments written in stone. Do we lay aside any of the other commandments with as much casual unconcern as we do the 4th?

 

[quietthinker]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some things here. While I can agree that the RCC has some unbiblical doctrines, and that the seat of the Papacy itself is concerning at the least, I think you are way off track with the Sunday sacredness thing.
And I'll tell you why...it's not just a knee-jerk reaction on my part because you are SDA. This is coming from someone who worships on a Sunday and is from a religion that worships on a Sunday. The thing you must understand is this: as Protestants, we don't worship on a Sunday because we hold the day to be "sacred"...to hold any power in symbolism, or any such thing. It's a rememberance thing. The Apostles started meeting "on the Lords Day"...as opposed to the Sabbath (on which they went to the Synagogues and attempted to sway their fellow Jews to Christ) because it was honouring the day that Christ rose from the grave. You see...because we have the freedom in Christ NOT to place such necessary weight on which day we gather and worship...that means that Sunday is but a choice for us. And if it's a choice, and not a mandate, it's not something we are likely to force on others. We ourselves often meet during the week, or on Saturdays as well. And while we don't agree with many of the doctrines of the SDA, we don't have any theological problem with you worshipping on a Saturday. Again, you have that freedom.
Now...the RCC may not recognize those freedoms, but they are a long, long way away from having the sort of pull they need to implement any sort of rule where people will be "forced" to worship on a Sunday. And I honestly can't see any logical or biblical reason they would, above and beyond the more important doctrines, decide their "sticking point" is Sunday worship.

With respect, but where did the idea come from that 'The Lords Day' is the first day of the week?

 

[Naomi25]

You mean my non-agreement displeased you

Hmmm. Let's think about that. Were you argreeing, or even disagreeing, for me to be "displeased" with?
You told brakelite to not bother putting forth his theories, they were not worth your time for considering.
Your words, not mine. Your disdain. Not an agreement, or disagreement.
I would have thought that on a Christian forum, when discussing issues not essential to salvation, we could ease up on the judgemental dismissal and just talk about these things. Can we disagree on these matters? Sure...of course we will. You heartily disagree with me, and I you. Doesn't mean I don't champion your right to have your opinion, or to voice it openly. I just think you need to show like sentiment to others, and if you feel you need to disagree with them strongly, do it biblically, rather than by looking down your nose.

 

[mjrhealth]

@Naomi25

well at least you understand we can worship the Lord any day we please an any way we desire, we are bound by no "laws" that determine such things.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

 

[Naomi25]

Who decides which day is the "Lord's Day"? And can you give me an example from scripture where the disciples met on the first day of the week as a memorial to the resurrection?

Hey brakelite.
There are a few verses that speak of the Disciples and Christians gathering together on the first day of the week:

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. -Acts 20:7

On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. -1 Corinthians 16:2

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” -John 20:19

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet -Revelation 1:10

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. -John 20:1

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. -Matthew 28:1

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. -Mark 16:1

So....from these verses we can clearly see that on "the first day of the week", which was "after the Sabbath"...the same day the Jesus rose from the grave, the disciples and Christians, gathered together to 'break bread', 'put something aside'...what we call tithing, and also Paul was 'talking' to the assembled believers on this Sunday as well. Without a doubt...it's a Church Serive.

More than that, on the same Sunday that Christ arose, he gave what had to have been the best "church" sermon ever given to the two Disciples on the road to Emmaus.

There is far and away enough evidence here to at least consider the notion that Church on a Sunday isn't heretical.

That 'weight' you speak of...I have seen that in different terms. Some call Sabbath keeping a "burden". But one must remember that it isn't other Sabbath keepers demanding or placing any burden upon anyone. All we are doing is attempting to make others aware of the paucity of any real Biblical foundation for Sunday observance, and in this thread in particular, the actual roots of Sunday...and it wasn't from the apostles as the more recent "criteria" above regarding law, points out.

Again, I cannot agree that just because the RCC worships on Sunday, that makes it unbiblical. As I showed above, the Disciples and early Christians were gathering on the first day of the week, far before the RCC was founded. You know the saying, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day"? Even if the RCC is as bad as you say, which it could well be, it doesn't negate some of the calls it has made. It cannot. After all, it too says that Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins. We cannot dismiss such a thing just because they believe it too, right?
Ultimately, we must derive any real decisions about our doctrines from scripture, not from what tradition says. Well...as I've pointed out above, the bible does lay a foundation for first day of the week worship. It also lays a foundation for freedom...for not being judged when it comes to days, or festivals, or Sabbaths. Or of what food we eat. All those things are part of the old covenant, and under the new, we have freedom. That freedom extends to those who choose to worship on Saturdays...to keep Sabbaths. But Paul makes it clear no one may judge.
The RCC may inappropriately see you as keeping the Sabbath. But how do you see us when we worship on a Sunday? What do the SDA teach about that? I'm not trying to get all 'fighty'...not at all, far from that. But, we must understand, I think, that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". If the bible teaches freedom on this thing, then freedom needs to be extended both ways, by all denominations...the RCC, Protestants, and SDA. It shouldn't matter what day we worship Christ, as long as we do.

History unfortunately proves otherwise. When Sunday first came into effect in the 4th century as an official religious statute, Sabbath keepers were relentlessly persecuted by Rome. And even as recent as the pioneering days of the new world, the early pilgrims forced Sunday keeping upon the whole community of believers and folk were fined, jailed, and I believe flogged if they failed to attend church. These Sunday laws are called blue laws, and many states still have them on their books, albeit not forced today as they once were. In the meantime, what is important in discussing this issue is not what the apostles or disciples did or not do...nor what the church seeks to accomplish, but what does the scripture in reality actually say in regards the Sabbath. Has God removed the sacredness from the 7th day of the week, and therefore does the command to keep it holy remain valid? If not, we need to have excellent reasons for laying it aside being one of the commandments written in stone. Do we lay aside any of the other commandments with as much casual unconcern as we do the 4th?

I think, if we look for it, we can find examples of any people group persecuting another people group. Why? People are broken. And yeah...the RCC has done more than her fair share of violence against others who disagree with her...Protestants included. I'm eminently glad we live in a post-reformation world, where we are free to own our own bibles which we can read ourselves.
However, yes, I agree that in the scheme of things these matter not as much as what the bible actually says about it all. Apart from the bible verses I quoted above, showing evidence for first day of the week gathering, it's important to see what is said about the Sabbath itself, and also what, as I mentioned before, the bible says regarding our freedoms under the new covenant.


Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” -Mark 2:23–28

What is Jesus saying here? Basically, that the law was intended to serve God’s people, rather than God’s people being intended to serve the law and then he goes on to emphasizes that man is not to be confined by the Sabbath but rather that the Sabbath has been given as a gift to man for spiritual and physical refreshment.
Also, when he says that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath...that's huge, and that brings us to this passage:


Let No One Disqualify You
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. -Colossians 2:16–19

Let no one pass judgement on you in question to a Sabbath! Why? Because these things were but a shadow of what was to come! Jesus!! He is Lord of the Sabbath! What the Sabbath was supposed to bring us...spiritual and physical refreshment...we find that now in Christ! When we put aside a day for gathering with those who are also his body; rejoicing in him, praying, praising, giving...that IS a Sabbath rest. All in him.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” -Matthew 11:28–30

 

[Naomi25]

With respect, but where did the idea come from that 'The Lords Day' is the first day of the week?

See the beginning of the post I just posted to brakelite. Several bible passages list believers and Disciples gathering together on "the first day of the week", which also happened to be the day Christ rose from the grave. I suppose people call it "the Lords Day" from the Revelation, where John says "I was in the spirit on the Lords Day". If it had been on Sabbath, he would have said that. If it had been on any other day...well...no other special connotations. But if the Church was already gathering together on the Sunday by that point, it's a rather obvious conclusion to make.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25

well at least you understand we can worship the Lord any day we please an any way we desire, we are bound by no "laws" that determine such things.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Yeah...I think it comes down to two...no...maybe three things: your conscience, which should be guided by the Holy Spirit. The verse: 1 Cor 6:12 that talks about how while everything may be "lawful" not everything is particularly helpful. And then really the whole counsel of scripture...which sound vague, I know, but as Christians we should be growing into better understandings of God's word, which will help us navigate a growth in a godly life...which hopefully will help us make better choices.

But...yeah, ultimately, when it comes to those things, Jesus died to give us those freedoms. If you told me that you prefer to worship Jesus at 4am Wednesday mornings because that's when you function best...I'd think you were nuts, but hey...no theological problem!

 

[CoreIssue]

Hmmm. Let's think about that. Were you argreeing, or even disagreeing, for me to be "displeased" with?
You told brakelite to not bother putting forth his theories, they were not worth your time for considering.
Your words, not mine. Your disdain. Not an agreement, or disagreement.
I would have thought that on a Christian forum, when discussing issues not essential to salvation, we could ease up on the judgemental dismissal and just talk about these things. Can we disagree on these matters? Sure...of course we will. You heartily disagree with me, and I you. Doesn't mean I don't champion your right to have your opinion, or to voice it openly. I just think you need to show like sentiment to others, and if you feel you need to disagree with them strongly, do it biblically, rather than by looking down your nose.

I told brakelite that because all he's doing is reciting SDA doctrine which I'm already familiar with and reject, as does the Bible.

That has nothing to do with anybody's right to say what they wish. It has everything to do with whether I need to read the same stuff over and over.

 

[mjrhealth]

Yeah...I think it comes down to two...no...maybe three things: your conscience, which should be guided by the Holy Spirit. The verse: 1 Cor 6:12 that talks about how while everything may be "lawful" not everything is particularly helpful. And then really the whole counsel of scripture...which sound vague, I know, but as Christians we should be growing into better understandings of God's word, which will help us navigate a growth in a godly life...which hopefully will help us make better choices.

But...yeah, ultimately, when it comes to those things, Jesus died to give us those freedoms. If you told me that you prefer to worship Jesus at 4am Wednesday mornings because that's when you function best...I'd think you were nuts, but hey...no theological problem!

well if I wake up at 4am doesnt take few secs to say thanks, does it..

 

[Naomi25]

I told brakelite that because all he's doing is reciting SDA doctrine which I'm already familiar with and reject, as does the Bible.

That has nothing to do with anybody's right to say what they wish. It has everything to do with whether I need to read the same stuff over and over.

Okay, sure, fine. You indeed have the right to disagree with people, especially if you've heard them all before. However...do you take the same consideration on board in your own conversations? For instance...when you and I talk about our difference in opinion on End Times, would you appeciate it if I dismissed your views completely out of hand, absolutely, simply because I know you're a dispensationalist and "I'm already familiar with it and reject it". I think, personally, that more benefit comes with discussion of the topic and an exchange of biblical passages...the whole iron sharpens iron thing.
Outright dismissal can be hurtful, and well...I just think that if you are serious in trying to woo people for the Lord, you might want to try and take the time to counter arguments you see as erroneous with scripture and with compassion. If it's unbiblical, sure, call it what it is. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with being factual either. But when we wave our hands and say "whatever, you're not worth our time or mental energy" we are sending a message contrary to the one God would have us send, I believe.

 

[Naomi25]

well if I wake up at 4am doesnt take few secs to say thanks, does it..

Thanks? Or "please can I go back to sleep?" I know some people are "early birds" but I cannot fathom anyone being pleased at being awake at 4am!!

 

[Waiting on him]

With respect, but where did the idea come from that 'The Lords Day' is the first day of the week?

First day of the week he was resurrected. And the next day he appears to them is on the first day of the week( Sunday). It became commonly referred to as the Lords day. Not certain will have to look at scripture but it may be every day he reappeared was First day of the week

 

[CoreIssue]

Okay, sure, fine. You indeed have the right to disagree with people, especially if you've heard them all before. However...do you take the same consideration on board in your own conversations? For instance...when you and I talk about our difference in opinion on End Times, would you appeciate it if I dismissed your views completely out of hand, absolutely, simply because I know you're a dispensationalist and "I'm already familiar with it and reject it". I think, personally, that more benefit comes with discussion of the topic and an exchange of biblical passages...the whole iron sharpens iron thing.
Outright dismissal can be hurtful, and well...I just think that if you are serious in trying to woo people for the Lord, you might want to try and take the time to counter arguments you see as erroneous with scripture and with compassion. If it's unbiblical, sure, call it what it is. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with being factual either. But when we wave our hands and say "whatever, you're not worth our time or mental energy" we are sending a message contrary to the one God would have us send, I believe.

I've laid out the problems with the SDA in many posts already.

The sanctuary investigative judgment violates what the Bible teaches about God knowing before creation who would be saved.

They completely rewrite prophecy.

The still uphold the false prophet Ellen G White.

They believe the Archangel Michael is Christ.

Most consider the SDA a cult.