The Destruction of Iran in the Last Days =Jeremiah 49

[Naomi25]

And all very normal challenges and questions. And I wouldn't expect anything less from you lol.
I have done this before... Presented my reasons for believing the papacy to be the Antichrist. The Antichrist, not just an Antichrist, or one of several. And yes, everything starts in Daniel. One cannot take Revelation or the writings of John and Paul as stand alone texts referring to Antichrist without referencing Daniel. Yet this is never without criticism. Several Catholic apologists on this forum go to great lengths to turn the arguments around and even deny history... Let alone skew the prophecies themselves to take the focus away from Rome (understandably) and point people's fingers toward something... Someone... Anyone else. And that has been an ongoing strategy since the reformers all agreed and pointed their collective fingers in the direction of the Tiber River, which spawned the counter reformation and the global advertising and propaganda campaign to refute and destroy the reformation. The Jesuits were at the forefront of this campaign... And with the Jesuit Pope now inviting the world to return to Mum, and protestants no longer identifying themselves as belonging to the reformation movement, the concepts and truths that for 400 years drove the reformation are now meet often with derision and accusations of hate speech and historical revisionism.

I have no objection to the majority of this. Yes, I believe dismissing Daniel is a mistake. Yes, I think the Reformation pioneers has good call to look with suspicion on the Papacy. Yes, I think the changes going on in the RCC now are not good at all, and the current Pope seems to be fitting the mantle of social justice warrior more than the 'vicar of God' (even though I do not agree that any one man should hold such a position).
Again, my big concern with slapping the label of 'The Antichrist' on that institution and seat, is the idea, I suppose, of timing and severity. We cannot know when Christ will return and therefore 'when' the 'man of lawlessness' will 'be revealed'. And we do not know how bad the situation can get. If things have looked bad within the RCC and look bad now, how can we be sure another institution won't come along that is infinitely worse?
You are, of course, welcome to convince me, I'm not opposed to changing my view in the face of overwhelming evidence, especially if it's backed up by biblical proof.

There are ten basic major criteria that must be met in order for any identification of the papacy as being the Antichrist to be affirmed. Many Adventists, who virtually alone in the world now represent the full reformation perspective on this topic, have written numerous books, tracts, articles, explaining from scripture and history why there really can be no other option on the table. WADR, no corporation, individual, or nation can fulfill all those criteria, which is why the only real Catholic defence was in inventing the futurist hermeneutic... Pointing to some imaginary individual in the future saves them from comparing such an individual to those criteria. They, and Protestant futurists, however have a problem. They cannot deny history. And Jesus said,
KJV John 14
29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
This is the key to understanding prophecy. Not clairvoyant futurism... But an honest study of history.

All right, I'm trying to grab hold of what you're saying here. You're saying that it has to be the RCC, there are no other candidates...presently. And that it also cannot be a future entity, because Jesus told his Disciples he had 'told them before it comes to pass'?
Except, that verse is in amongst the passage where he speaks of his leaving them and the Holy Spirit coming to dwell with them. It has nothing to do with them watching for future events, or the coming of the lawless one, or the persecution they might face.
However, when we look at what Paul wrote, he very specifically tells us that "The Day of the Lord" will not come UNTIL the rebellion and the 'man of lawlessness' is revealed. This seems to indicate that the Antichrist will not be revealed, unveiled, discovered, until the time right before Christ's return, when he will then slay this man with 'the breath of his coming'. John also distinguishes between the fact that history will be filled with antichrists, but there will be a final Antichrist. Final implies an end, which, especially in line with Paul, leads us to conclude that this person, and probably the institution or nation he leads, will rise to prominence just before Christ's return. It is this sign to us that we may know the Day of the Lord is upon us.

To me, this seems to be the clear reading of both the verse you cite as well as 2 Thess 2.
Now, I might suppose that you could argue that something can be revealed that has been there all along: like the RCC. However, if you are claiming you have known all along that the RCC is the Antichrist....then that is not a revealing. Paul's text implies that we can only know who this man of sin is when the 'restrainer' is taken out of the way, allowing this Man of lawlessness to burst onto the scene. That does not at all sound like the situation you are presenting, does it?

I suppose what it comes down to is this: I don't oppose the idea of the Papacy fitting the bill. Many people within the RCC I respect and call brothers and sister. But the higher ups? The Vatican? Oh, boy. Gives me the chills. But the problems I've laid out here are sort of a biblical sticking point for me. I'll happily listen if you believe you have logical work arounds of them...but I can't promise I'll see eye to eye with you.

 

[brakelite]

I say to you; that to use ten of the destroyers of the Roman Empire, over a long period of time, as the fulfilment of the ten kings who are prophesied to rule the world, all at one time; is a dishonest use of history.

I agree. That would be a warped dishonest use of history if that were the case... And if that is what you believe Adventists teach, one who is so interested in eschatology, imagine the misunderstandings of others about Adventist teachings who arent so interested as you. I admit to being surprised you think so little of us that after 160 years we could be making such an obvious mistake?

 

[brakelite]

Okay, I have a blog on WordPress (link below) that I haven't actually added to a great deal of late, but where I have laid out most of my arguments that would answer your questions. So if you don't mind, I will copy and paste those articles here as you bring up any particular objection or question.
The first one I think would be your question on the "restrainer". I wrote a full article dealing with that one question, and actually reprinted it as a stand alone thread here...
The Restrainer and the Restrained
Although as is quite normal in any discussion thread, the conversation went ina direction where even the second coming itself was brought into question. But I stand by my original two posts with the caveat that the specific identity of the 3 horns that were uprooted may be up for correction. But the general tenor of the topic...I still stand by.

 

[brakelite]

@Naomi25
In the early centuries the greatest apostasy in the history of Christendom took place. It began in the time of the apostles (t the spirit of iniquity doth already work) and took several hundred years to develop to its fullest depth of wickedness: Paul and the apostle John warned of its imminence, and the result was the papacy. This monstrous evil continued for 1000 years the persecutions against God's people first carried out by Jews, continued by pagan Rome, and developed to a fine art by Catholicism. During this time, the true church knew revival. The church grew to such an extent of power and influence that entire kingdoms were saved and converted from Britain to Japan, all before the middle ages which witnessed in Europe the Roman version of Nazism. Rome not only failed to recognise the existence of that church, but continues to this day to lie and deny it ever existed. They have done all they can to wipe any evidence of it from history, and what they cannot destroy, they call heresy. So not only did the apostasy not recognise the massive wonderful work of God in establishing this church in the wilderness, it set out to destroy it wherever it came across it.
The present apostasy will be no different. Revelation speaks of a great end time revival where God's people go to the ends of the earth preaching the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, but the scripture also speaks of the enmity of the established church, Babylon the great and her harlot daughters who not only, again, (you see history repeats) fail utterly to recognise the work of God (just as Israel failed to and murdered her Messiah... And papal Rome failed to and murdered His children) but instigate religious sanctions and legislation designed to coerce and force the global community to join in her apostasy... Only one group deny Babylon's spiritual victory... Those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony (the Spirit of prophecy) of Jesus. You can read all about it in Revelation 13 and 14.
The end time issues as far as Antichrist is concerned aren't political issues... They are religious. Two opposing cities... Babylon and Jerusalem. But the literal cities in the middle east, but global spiritual powers, the final end time manifestations of the war between Christ and Satan.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25
In the early centuries the greatest apostasy in the history of Christendom took place. It began in the time of the apostles (t the spirit of iniquity doth already work) and took several hundred years to develop to its fullest depth of wickedness: Paul and the apostle John warned of its imminence, and the result was the papacy. This monstrous evil continued for 1000 years the persecutions against God's people first carried out by Jews, continued by pagan Rome, and developed to a fine art by Catholicism. During this time, the true church knew revival. The church grew to such an extent of power and influence that entire kingdoms were saved and converted from Britain to Japan, all before the middle ages which witnessed in Europe the Roman version of Nazism. Rome not only failed to recognise the existence of that church, but continues to this day to lie and deny it ever existed. They have done all they can to wipe any evidence of it from history, and what they cannot destroy, they call heresy. So not only did the apostasy not recognise the massive wonderful work of God in establishing this church in the wilderness, it set out to destroy it wherever it came across it.
The present apostasy will be no different. Revelation speaks of a great end time revival where God's people go to the ends of the earth preaching the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, but the scripture also speaks of the enmity of the established church, Babylon the great and her harlot daughters who not only, again, (you see history repeats) fail utterly to recognise the work of God (just as Israel failed to and murdered her Messiah... And papal Rome failed to and murdered His children) but instigate religious sanctions and legislation designed to coerce and force the global community to join in her apostasy... Only one group deny Babylon's spiritual victory... Those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony (the Spirit of prophecy) of Jesus. You can read all about it in Revelation 13 and 14.
The end time issues as far as Antichrist is concerned aren't political issues... They are religious. Two opposing cities... Babylon and Jerusalem. But the literal cities in the middle east, but global spiritual powers, the final end time manifestations of the war between Christ and Satan.

Ok. I think everyone, even Catholics, can recognize that Catholic history is not, perhaps a proud one. But, therein lies a problem as I see it. You seem to be resting a fair chunk of your argument on this history. And if we are looking at just poor, unbiblical histories, we must allow that most cultures, nations and even denominations also have moments they are not proud of. Yes, the RCC persecuted Protestants. But the Protestant Church has also had her moments where she acted outside the guides of biblical practice. We could point to those moments and label those leaders, those actions 'anti-christ'. We can also look at the monstrous leaders throughout history that fit the bill as well; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. What about the whole religion of Islam, who's "mahdi" is the perfect description of our Antichrist?
My point is this: history alone cannot provide us with an identification on who this person or system is. Especially a historical basis focused around anti-biblical sentiment and actions.

It seems very much to me as though you have declared to yourself that Rome is the only possible fit, and then your conclusions have cascaded from there. But, I have yet to see what I would say are biblical convincing arguments to points the finger at Rome and only Rome. You quote Revelation 13, but I can see no requirements here that point to Rome. Firstly, I see no mention of "Babylon and her daughters". Granted the whore of Babylon is a prominent character in Revelation, but I'm unaware of her having daughters show up anywhere. Secondly, Rev 13 tells us that this first 'beast' will be given authority over "every tribe, nation and tongue and ALL who dwell on the earth worship it". Now...while I recognize that the RCC has believers in all places in the world, they do not have 'authority' over everything and everyone in all these countries. Neither do ALL peoples in the world worship the RCC. And this, I believe, presents a problem for you. And it begins to circle around the restrainer, which you linked to. I will answer that post directly, but for now I'll say this: if you claim the RCC has been the AC all along and you've been able to know all along, then you must acknowledge that the characteristics OF AC must have been present all along as well. And yet, from what we see here in Rev 13, I'm saying we don't. And when combined with Paul's telling us of a 'last day revealing', then yes....I'm still leaning towards AC being something that has yet to be revealed to us.
Now....I'm not saying that it will NOT be, or CAN not be, the RCC....I'm just saying that it has not yet reached the place it needs to be at to meet all the criteria. In other words....it'll have to get worse, both the institution itself, and the Pope leading it will need to start making some fairly obscene and outrageous claims that he then has the ability to enforce. At present he does not.

 

[Naomi25]

@brakelite said:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-10

And the Dragon gave him his power, his SEAT, and much authority." Revel. 13:2

The above verses are perhaps, alongside Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, the most significant texts in the entire word of God as to revealing the identity of the Antichrist of scripture. When reading Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, and in contemplating the above, the reader cannot help but be impressed with the detail and amount of information given regarding the nature, the thoughts, beliefs and practices of this entity who from the beginnings of the Christian faith to the present time, has shed such a dark forbidding cloud over the true church. In these few short verses the apostle Paul has given his readers a clear and unambiguous signpost pointing directly to the rise of the man of sin, the son perdition. A signpost that he first revealed to the Thessalonian church in person, and reaffirmed in this letter. Bible scholars for centuries have agreed that the reason Paul was less than forthcoming in his letter in naming the ‘restrainer’ directly as he is commonly known, was because there was a very real danger involved in so doing. That danger coming from the restrainer himself, the Roman pagan empire who ruled the then known world at that time, and who, if upon reading this letter and realizing that Paul was here saying that their power was about to be swept away to make way for another, Paul would have been immediately arrested and charged, tried, and executed for sedition. Also, because the Thessalonians already knew who Paul was talking about, it was not necessary for Paul to risk naming Rome again.

Ok, two initial points I would make here: the first being: when did the Apostle Paul EVER not say something he felt called of God to say, even in the face of jail or death? This would be the first time ever, if he did. The man feared nothing and no one. And well he shouldn't, lest he be a hypocrite. After all, he was the one who told his audience that he was sure he would remain among the living as long as he knew God had work for him, but the moment God was finished with that, Paul would gratefully join his Lord in the other life, which he considered the better of the two. So, I must say, that using the "Paul just didn't tell us the identity of the restrainer because he was scared" reasoning to be a little lacking.

Also, I would just say that you've just argued away your own argument by saying "the Thessalonians already knew who Paul was talking about". Obviously it wasn't necessary for Paul to tell them all over again. If we place ourselves in Paul's shoes...someone fearless for the gospel, someone also full of confidence that God would protect him until his work was done...but also someone who had already done the work here and the somewhat flighty people had jumped right over what you'd said, no doubt you'd word your letter in a tone of 'I have already spoken to you of these things, remember?' You can almost hear Paul stressing the "And you know what restrains him" and then see the people smacking themselves on the forehead as they did, indeed, remember.

But either way, the message of the passage is clear: the Day of the Lord had NOT come then. It will not come until the 'rebellion' or apostasy comes first and the 'man of lawlessness' is revealed. The one whom the Lord will slay with the breath of his coming. So...again...I'm wondering how 'the MAN of lawlessness' can be revealed to be slayed by Christ's coming on the Day of the Lord, if this all happened way back then. You say that the whole papal system is the AC, however, while we might see that the 'beast' of Rev 13 supports the idea of a system, we also have some clear passages that have a man figure-heading that system. And THAT man, seems only to come onto the scene in the end days.

Again, you might say that the whole RCC is the AC system, and that we're looking for a final Pope to be that 'man of lawlessness'...but I'm still left with the fact that you arrived at the RCC by what I see as assumptions and presuppositions. Just because they've been doctrinally off in many ways, doesn't make them the only ones. Just because they've done some clearly evil things in the past, doesn't make them the only ones. Just because we may not like them and how they do 'religion'....doesn't make them the AC. And to be perfectly honest with you, while I'm agreeing with most of your historical facts about the RCC, I just haven't seen that much biblical evidence that ties the two together.

 

[brakelite]

@brakelite said:


Ok, two initial points I would make here: the first being: when did the Apostle Paul EVER not say something he felt called of God to say, even in the face of jail or death? This would be the first time ever, if he did. The man feared nothing and no one. And well he shouldn't, lest he be a hypocrite. After all, he was the one who told his audience that he was sure he would remain among the living as long as he knew God had work for him, but the moment God was finished with that, Paul would gratefully join his Lord in the other life, which he considered the better of the two. So, I must say, that using the "Paul just didn't tell us the identity of the restrainer because he was scared" reasoning to be a little lacking.

Also, I would just say that you've just argued away your own argument by saying "the Thessalonians already knew who Paul was talking about". Obviously it wasn't necessary for Paul to tell them all over again. If we place ourselves in Paul's shoes...someone fearless for the gospel, someone also full of confidence that God would protect him until his work was done...but also someone who had already done the work here and the somewhat flighty people had jumped right over what you'd said, no doubt you'd word your letter in a tone of 'I have already spoken to you of these things, remember?' You can almost hear Paul stressing the "And you know what restrains him" and then see the people smacking themselves on the forehead as they did, indeed, remember.

But either way, the message of the passage is clear: the Day of the Lord had NOT come then. It will not come until the 'rebellion' or apostasy comes first and the 'man of lawlessness' is revealed. The one whom the Lord will slay with the breath of his coming. So...again...I'm wondering how 'the MAN of lawlessness' can be revealed to be slayed by Christ's coming on the Day of the Lord, if this all happened way back then. You say that the whole papal system is the AC, however, while we might see that the 'beast' of Rev 13 supports the idea of a system, we also have some clear passages that have a man figure-heading that system. And THAT man, seems only to come onto the scene in the end days.

Again, you might say that the whole RCC is the AC system, and that we're looking for a final Pope to be that 'man of lawlessness'...but I'm still left with the fact that you arrived at the RCC by what I see as assumptions and presuppositions. Just because they've been doctrinally off in many ways, doesn't make them the only ones. Just because they've done some clearly evil things in the past, doesn't make them the only ones. Just because we may not like them and how they do 'religion'....doesn't make them the AC. And to be perfectly honest with you, while I'm agreeing with most of your historical facts about the RCC, I just haven't seen that much biblical evidence that ties the two together.

Okay, so far I've only dealt with generalities. I can get into details, biblical and historical, shortly, but it may take a few days. I will mention one point however... The persecutions of papal Rome against opposition didn't just begin in the 16 th century against protestants. As early as the fifth century Clovis, King of the Franks, converted to Catholicism and with his army dedicated himself to spread Catholicism throughout his territories which he did very ably, not by the gospel, but by sword and blood. Thus Rome named him the eldest son of the Catholic church. That was the beginning of a policy that remained entrenched within the HQ of Catholicism for over 1000 years and was used throughout western Europe by succeeding Kings, Queens and emperors. This policy of using secular armies to gain religious power and authority is a hallmark of pagan church state unions, and will be the weapon of choice to establish the mark of the beast... It is one of the more pronounced characteristics of Antichrist that makes it unique in the Christian world and the most opposed to the true gospel.

 

[quietthinker]

You say we should 'do an honest study of history'.
I say to you; that to use ten of the destroyers of the Roman Empire, over a long period of time, as the fulfilment of the ten kings who are prophesied to rule the world, all at one time; is a dishonest use of history.

Keraz...brakelite said 'ten criteria' ....you have interpreted it to mean 'fulfilment of the ten kings who are prophesied to rule the world, all at one time' ...I would reconsider.

 

[brakelite]

Keraz...brakelite said 'ten criteria' ....you have interpreted it to mean 'fulfilment of the ten kings who are prophesied to rule the world, all at one time' ...I would reconsider.

I think he believes Adventists teach the ten toes of Daniel 2 are the same entities as the ten horns of Daniel 7.

 

[Keraz]

I think he believes Adventists teach the ten toes of Daniel 2 are the same entities as the ten horns of Daniel 7.

The ten toes of the statue in Daniel, do allude to those future ten Governors who will be appointed to rule the ten world divisions, as has already been decided.
My objection is to the attempt to make out that they are the ones who conquered Rome and this prophecy is fulfilled.

 

[brakelite]

The ten toes of the statue in Daniel, do allude to those future ten Governors who will be appointed to rule the ten world divisions, as has already been decided.
My objection is to the attempt to make out that they are the ones who conquered Rome and this prophecy is fulfilled.

Exactly what I thought you were thinking... But who is attempting to convince anyone that those toes are the ten who replaced pagan Rome in the western Empire, because I agree with you... They cannot be because those Kings at the end are ten... And those toes were reduced to seven 1400 years ago.

 

[brakelite]

@Naomi25
The Little horn described as growing from the 4th beast of the Daniel 7 vision of the four beasts prophecy is universally identified by biblical scholarship as being the same entity as the man of sin... The Antichrist... First beast of revelation 13... Because all share contextually the same criteria... Same life span... Same chronology. Here are 11 specific characteristics of that little horn, many of which he shares with those other metaphorical presentations of this entity.
1. The little horn arises from the fourth beast (7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, so the little horn must be a Roman power.

2. The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe.

3.The little horn rises after the ten horns (7:24). According to historians, the ten horns were complete in the year 476 A. D., this also being the commonly accepted date for the final dissolution of the western portion of the Roman Empire, so this must mean that the little horn was to arise to power sometime after 476 A. D.

4. The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!!

5. The little horn was to speak great words against the Most High (7:21, 25). Revelation 13:5 explains what these words would be, namely, blasphemy. And, What is blasphemy according to the Bible? It is when a merely human power claims to be God on earth and when it thinks it can exercise the prerogatives and functions of God (see, John 10:30-33; Mark 2:7).

6. The little horn was to be a persecuting power. This is stated in Daniel 7:21 and repeated in verse 25.

7. The little horn would think it could change God’s “times”, that is to say, God’s timetable of prophetic events. (Daniel 2:21). We shall see that the little horn invented a false system of prophetic interpretation to rival historicism.

8. The little horn would even have the audacity to THINK that it could change God’s holy law. (7:25). This must of necessity be God's laws because political powers change secular human laws because every day... This power however seeks to change God's law... But of course can only think to accomplish this despite claiming to have in fact accomplished it... For no human institution or individual can change God's laws.

9. The little horn would be different (diverse) than the other ten horns. It would be an amalgamation of church and state (7:24)

10. This power would govern for a time, times and half a time (7:25). This comes out to 42 months or 1260 days (see, Revelation 13:5-6; 12:6, 13-15). In Bible prophecy, literal days are symbolic of years, so this power was to govern in its initial stage for 1260 years, which explains how Paul could describe that power's imminent arrival, and at the same time be still here at the time of the second coming.

11. The little horn had eyes like a man. In Bible Prophecy, eyes are a symbol of wisdom (see, Ephesians 1:18; Revelation 5:6). Even today, an owl is a symbol of wisdom because of its large eyes. In other words, this power was to depend on human wisdom, but also have at its head an individual spokesman.

Happy to explain more fully any of the above.

 

[Keraz]

Exactly what I thought you were thinking... But who is attempting to convince anyone that those toes are the ten who replaced pagan Rome in the western Empire, because I agree with you... They cannot be because those Kings at the end are ten... And those toes were reduced to seven 1400 years ago.

Ancient history does not fulfil end time prophecy.
Daniel 7:23-25 clearly states that the Fourth Kingdom will encompass the whole earth. As does Revelation 17:8

The unfortunate result of thinking that the prophesies have been fulfilled; the preterist view, is that it leaves those who believe it; despite Biblical evidence to the contrary, in the dark about God's plans for our future. Paul tells us we should not be unaware and unprepared for all that must happen before Jesus Returns. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

 

[brakelite]

Ancient history does not fulfil end time prophecy.
Daniel 7:23-25 clearly states that the Fourth Kingdom will encompass the whole earth. As does Revelation 17:8

The unfortunate result of thinking that the prophesies have been fulfilled; the preterist view, is that it leaves those who believe it; despite Biblical evidence to the contrary, in the dark about God's plans for our future. Paul tells us we should not be unaware and unprepared for all that must happen before Jesus Returns. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

It is not the preterist view, for it does not consider all prophecies to have been fulfilled in the past. It is historicist, and it is the only way of interpreting prophecy in a manner that gives anyone confidence regarding the future... Because history repeats... What was in the past shall be again... There is nothing new under the sun.
The feet of Nebuchadnezzar's statue are destroyed at the second coming... The global Empire that the iron and clay mix represents must be in part, Roman. Though the toes are not mentioned in prophecy, by inference we must assume all ten are there at the end.
The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is but a magnification of the iron section of the statute. That fourth beast is Rome. And yes, it also must be destroyed at the second coming. So the conclusion should not be... Impossible, because Rome no longer exists, but rather, how does Rome still exist at the time of the end to be destroyed as per the prophecy? And the answer is that Rome exists in the form of the papacy. We all know this is true in that so much of what now exists within Catholicism (Pontifex Maximus etc etc) was inherited from pagan Rome, the fourth beast, and the iron metal mixed with clay. Which then begs the question of course, how does the prophecy reveal this? How does clay represent the Catholic church? How does the fourth beast turn into a church? These are the questions you should be investigating, biblically, instead of writing the entire concept off because it doesn't fit with your ideas. Don't react half chocked and refuse to dig... There are answers and they are entirely reasonable... And wholly biblical... Which is why the reformation was so powerful and the counter reformation so vicious. The reformation was founded and sparked by the revelation that the papacy was the Antichrist of scripture and the massive exodus of people from that system into Protestantism was evidence that what the reformers were teaching had merit and was not based on fantasy, resentment, or imagination. The reformation was based on biblically sound exegesis... And the reason why so many protestants are returning to Rome today and why so many will accept the mark of the papal beast in the future is because they have abandoned that which the reformers all stood for and gave their lives so that people like you and me could be informed and warned of the present danger.

 

[Naomi25]

Okay, so far I've only dealt with generalities. I can get into details, biblical and historical, shortly, but it may take a few days. I will mention one point however... The persecutions of papal Rome against opposition didn't just begin in the 16 th century against protestants. As early as the fifth century Clovis, King of the Franks, converted to Catholicism and with his army dedicated himself to spread Catholicism throughout his territories which he did very ably, not by the gospel, but by sword and blood. Thus Rome named him the eldest son of the Catholic church. That was the beginning of a policy that remained entrenched within the HQ of Catholicism for over 1000 years and was used throughout western Europe by succeeding Kings, Queens and emperors. This policy of using secular armies to gain religious power and authority is a hallmark of pagan church state unions, and will be the weapon of choice to establish the mark of the beast... It is one of the more pronounced characteristics of Antichrist that makes it unique in the Christian world and the most opposed to the true gospel.

I may have missed your main point here, forgive me if I have. But...I don't see how the timing of Rome's persecution of Christians or oppositions helps the case in this instance. And what I mean is this: yes, we already know that Papal Rome began persecuting those who stood against them early. But when a person, you for example, is actually trying to persuade others that the Antichrist is not someone or something that will rise a the end of the age, but earlier, then stressing the specific date of earliness is perhaps not the preliminary argument I would make; rather I would think it would be more important to address the idea that 2 Thess 2 could indeed be seen as the AC being revealed long before the 'Day of the Lord'.

Also, while your claim that Papal Rome's technique to use sword and blood to force its belief system throughout the territories is "unique to Christendom" it is by no means unique to religious belief or other belief systems. And as we go forward we are seeing more and more calls for all things to be united under a universal ecumenism. While the bible states that the AC will ultimately take a seat 'in the temple of God', it also states that he will worship and recognize no god or belief other than himself. Therefore it is not beyond speculation that this man could head a global ecumenical movement that claims to speak for every religion. Could that be where the Papacy is steering itself? Maybe. But maybe is the operative word. None of us know, and everything is speculation until the deed is actually done and the man is 'revealed'.

 

[brakelite]

I may have missed your main point here, forgive me if I have. But...I don't see how the timing of Rome's persecution of Christians or oppositions helps the case in this instance. And what I mean is this: yes, we already know that Papal Rome began persecuting those who stood against them early. But when a person, you for example, is actually trying to persuade others that the Antichrist is not someone or something that will rise a the end of the age, but earlier, then stressing the specific date of earliness is perhaps not the preliminary argument I would make; rather I would think it would be more important to address the idea that 2 Thess 2 could indeed be seen as the AC being revealed long before the 'Day of the Lord'.

Also, while your claim that Papal Rome's technique to use sword and blood to force its belief system throughout the territories is "unique to Christendom" it is by no means unique to religious belief or other belief systems. And as we go forward we are seeing more and more calls for all things to be united under a universal ecumenism. While the bible states that the AC will ultimately take a seat 'in the temple of God', it also states that he will worship and recognize no god or belief other than himself. Therefore it is not beyond speculation that this man could head a global ecumenical movement that claims to speak for every religion. Could that be where the Papacy is steering itself? Maybe. But maybe is the operative word. None of us know, and everything is speculation until the deed is actually done and the man is 'revealed'.

2Thess.. Isn't the only passage of scripture that describes the nature, character, actions, and tenure of the Antichrist. You can't just fixate on one text without harmonising it with all the others. Rather than settling on one concussion that says, Antichrist is destroyed at the second coming therefore must be in the future, ask yourself, is there a way in which the prophecy is presented that reveals the Antichrist as existing over a long period of time, beginning anciently and remaining to this day and into the future? Are there prophecies which reveal this? And the answer is yes.
In the statue if Daniel 2. The iron (Rome), mixed with clay is still there at the end to be destroyed.
I'm the fourth beast, the little horn which grows out of Rome (making it intrinsically a Roman horn) is also still there at the end to be judged.
The first beast of revelation is a composite beast... Comprising of all those beasts previously revealed in Daniel, all existing, including Rome, at the end to be destroyed and cast into the lake of fire.

This is the historicist hermeneutic that views apocalyptic prophecy as beginning is fulfillment during the lifetime of the prophet and continues in an unbroken timeline through history until the end. Only by viewing project in this manner can we gauge with any accuracy where we are in relation to the end. The preterist thinks all prophecy is past, except the second coming... This has very little to observe by way of current events to discern where he is.
Futurism is no better off in that most prophecies for him is still future, but to gauge where he is now in the timeline must fit current events into his futurist scenario rather than looking into history and discovering the vast majority of prophecy was fulfilled in an ongoing sweep throughout time.
Harmonising Daniel, Thessalonians, John, and revelation, is not only essential, but a whole lot of fun when you finally see everything coming together in a wonderful perfect revelation of God's awesome knowledge wisdom and power.

 

[brakelite]

Oh, and @Naomi25 I only mentioned the persecutions of the papacy because you first brought them up. While they are significant, they aren't the only criteria... As I've posted elsewhere, they are but one of eleven I've chosen. Darting between two threads in getting confused...I shall repost those here.

 

[brakelite]

The word Antichrist, means in essence, that which opposes Christ by replacing Christ. Christ, the true High Priest now ministering in the heavenly sanctuary above, is replaced in the hearts and minds of Antichrist's followers by presenting a system of worship in such a manner that the true Christ is substituted by Antichrist. This concept is starkly revealed within the Catholic system.

See in the following comparison how Antichrist is a counterfeit of the true Christ.

The sea-beast or antichrist of revelation 13.
Comes from water to begin activity. (13:1)
Resembles dragon. (12:13 13:1)
Ten diadems. (13:1)
Ten horns (13:1)
Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (13:2,4)
42 months of activity in first phase. (13:5)
Was slain (13:3)
Resurrected (13:3)
Receives worship after healing (13:3,4,8)

Now compare:
Jesus Christ
Comes from water to begin ministry (Luke 3:21-23)
Resembles Father (Jn 14:19)
Many diadems (Rev 19:12)
Lamb has 7 horns (5:6)
Receives power throne and authority from His Father (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27 Chapters 4,5)
42 months of ministry in initial phase. (Gospel of John)
Was slain (Rev 5:6)
Was resurrected (Rev1:18)
Received worship after resurrection (Math 28:17)

Another way of looking at this is again through scripture...

Christ. Who is He? Let us go to the scriptures to find out what and Who He claimed to be.

Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words. Greater even than the very law of God enshrined within. (Or at least it used to be). Only one person can be greater than any law of God, and that is the lawgiver.

38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted an entire city of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. Nineveh. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon.

In the three startling claims as shown above, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus. Priest, prophet, and King.

It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. So is there an institution that claims to be vicariously ministering in the place of Christ as priest, prophet, and king?

 

[brakelite]

Some of the reformers did not believe any one individual Pope was the Antichrist,, although the vast majority of reformers identifed the papal system or its Pope as Antichrist. However some to the following view...as a succession of leaders of the Antichrist system.
The Antichrist is revealed to us through scripture in several different ways. In Daniel 2 he is the mixture of iron and clay. In Daniel 7 he is the little horn. In 2 Thess the man of sin and son of perdition, and in Revelation 13 the first beast.
I have mentioned before that Nebuchadnezzar was the representative of the entire empire, so also with the ‘man of sin’. Below is an excerpt from a sermon by the renowned preacher and writer Puritan Thomas Manton in the 17th century. Charles Spurgeon testified to Mantons works as being “a mighty mountain of sound theology”

But because he is called the man of sin, here it cometh fitly to be inquired whether Antichrist be an individual person? for ‘that man of sin’ would seem to be some single person. No; he is put for a society and succession of men, that make up the head of the apostate state. As one lion figured the whole kingdom of the Babylonians, and one bear the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and one leopard the kingdom of the Grecians, Dan. 7, — and there the fourth beast is the fourth kingdom, — so one person that succession of men that head the revolters from Christ. So Dan. 8, a goat figured a succession of kings; so the Assyrian, Isa. 10:5, several kings in that empire; so Isa. 14:9, the king of Babylon, meaning not one but many. So this man of sin doth not note a single man, but a succession of men, a body politic or corporate, under one opposite head to the kingdom of Christ: so the ‘man of God’ is put for all faithful ministers, 2 Tim. 3:17; so ‘honour the king,’ I Peter 2:17, series regum. So o arciereus, Heb. 9:25, ‘The high priest every year entereth into the holy place;’ meaning not one, but the succession of the order; and in reason it must needs be so here. Because Antichrist, from his beginning to his end, from his rise and revelation, till his ruin and destruction, will take up such a long track of time, as cannot fall within the age of any one man, even from the time of the apostles till the end of the world. Antichrist is the head of the apostasy; for here the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin are tied together; now the mysterious apostasy could not be perfected in a short time.

In this sermon, Manton, like many reformers before him, was applying the prophecy of 2 Thess. concerning the man of sin directly to the papal system.

 

[Keraz]

Impossible, because Rome no longer exists, but rather, how does Rome still exist at the time of the end to be destroyed as per the prophecy? And the answer is that Rome exists in the form of the papacy. We all know this is true in that so much of what now exists within Catholicism (Pontifex Maximus etc etc) was inherited from pagan Rome, the fourth beast, and the iron metal mixed with clay. Which then begs the question of course, how does the prophecy reveal this? How does clay represent the Catholic church? How does the fourth beast turn into a church? These are the questions you should be investigating, biblically, instead of writing the entire concept off because it doesn't fit with your ideas. Don't react half chocked and refuse to dig... There are answers and they are entirely reasonable... And wholly biblical..

I have already shown the scripture that proves the RCC and the 'beast' empire are two different entities. Revelation 17:15-18
Your premise may have some credibility for the time up until now, but it doesn't for the end times.