Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)

[covenantee]

So you are going with popular opinion over God's Word then?

I have not speculated on anything, but what I have read from history books, just like you have. Should I accuse you of speculation about people who lived over a thousand years ago?

Paul knew that the Holy Spirit was already at work. The Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost years before Paul wrote the book of 2 Thessalonians.

So you are going with your own opinion over God's Word then?

Speculation is for Jesuit futurites. Historical fulfillment doesn't speculate.

Paul said, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work".

He wasn't referring to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Timtofly]

So you are going with your own opinion over God's Word then?

Speculation is for Jesuit futurites. Historical fulfillment doesn't speculate.

Paul said, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work".

He wasn't referring to the Holy Spirit.

Who said the Holy Spirit was the mystery of iniquity? You have no understanding of God's Word, but seem sure of your human opinions throughout history to back up your own private opinions.

Satan has being held back by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. That is working through those who are led by the Holy Spirit.

You claim Rome is the hero, who then let the popes take over. Where is that found in Scripture?

 

[covenantee]

Who said the Holy Spirit was the mystery of iniquity? You have no understanding of God's Word, but seem sure of your human opinions throughout history to back up your own private opinions.

Satan has being held back by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. That is working through those who are led by the Holy Spirit.

You claim Rome is the hero, who then let the popes take over. Where is that found in Scripture?

Paul said, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work".

You said, "Paul knew that the Holy Spirit was already at work."

Why didn't you quote what Paul said, instead of substituting what you said?

Please provide a verbatim quote of anyone other than yourself who has characterized Rome as the hero.

 

[Timtofly]

Paul said, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work".

You said, "Paul knew that the Holy Spirit was already at work."

Why didn't you quote what Paul said, instead of substituting what you said?

Please provide a verbatim quote of anyone other than yourself who has characterized Rome as the hero.

Do you even know the topic of the thread?

I was not quoting Paul. Do you even know that the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost?

All you are doing is twisting my words, and coming up with your own idea of some point off topic, which ends up being nonsensical.

It is bad enough that you agree with the poster I was having a conversation with that Rome was the entity holding back Satan for hundreds of years.

 

[covenantee]

I was not quoting Paul.

Why not? Don't you agree with him?

All you are doing is twisting my words

You're twisting your own words.

It is bad enough that you agree with the poster I was having a conversation with that Rome was the entity holding back Satan for hundreds of years.

Rome was the entity holding back the antichrist of the apostate papacy, as the ECFs recognized.
Explain why that was bad.

 

[Phoneman777]

That is a non-biblical statement.

You did not cite bible verses in your post.

I'm sure I cited them at some point, and am happy to do it again. Keep in mind, OT prophecies sometimes not only apply to the current state of Israel's affairs, but to the end times, hence the name "dual prophecy" such as:

"the coming of Elijah"

• John the Baptist preaching "revival and reformation" (
• end times remnant church preaching the "revival and reformation (Revelation 14:6-12 KJV)

So you are going with popular opinion over God's Word then?

Pal, I've been poking so many holes in your Jesuit Futurist ideas that "holey" is about as holy as they'll get.

I have not speculated on anything, but what I have read from history books, just like you have. Should I accuse you of speculation about people who lived over a thousand years ago?

What history? You keep talking about a "fifth kingdom" when history plainly tells us that the fourth empire - Rome - was divided into Ten Kingdoms with no "fifth kingdom" rising up after it.

Paul knew that the Holy Spirit was already at work. The Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost years before Paul wrote the book of 2 Thessalonians.

So what? If Paul thought the Holy Spirit was keeping the rise of the Man of Sin in check, why didn't he just come out and say so?

"Remember when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth...only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way..."

Paul - who preached Christ to kings and drunkards, from palaces to pavement - had these three full opportunities to just say "Holy Spirit" but Paul didn't. According to the ECFs, it's because he didn't want to risk church extermination, but you Jesuit Futurists and the Jesuit "scholars" whose feet of learning you sit at know better than they, right?

 

[Gottservant]

A man with a soft head, confuses many expectations (selah)

 

[Timtofly]

Why not? Don't you agree with him?


You're twisting your own words.

Rome was the entity holding back the antichrist of the apostate papacy, as the ECFs recognized.
Explain why that was bad.

Satan was hindering Satan? Why is that good? That is what the Pharisees told Jesus that Satan was casting out Satan, and now you have the ECF stating Satan was holding himself back, and you agree with that premise.

Would you say the papacy was already at work in the OT, as demonic possession, and Pagan Rome, under Satanic control was casting out those demons in the name of Satan? Just like the Pharisees did?

 

[Timtofly]

Paul - who preached Christ to kings and drunkards, from palaces to pavement - had these three full opportunities to just say "Holy Spirit" but Paul didn't. According to the ECFs, it's because he didn't want to risk church extermination, but you Jesuit Futurists and the Jesuit "scholars" whose feet of learning you sit at know better than they, right?

So when Jesus said the church would be killed for His sake, Paul went behind the back of Jesus and prevented that from happening?

You make no sense.

 

[covenantee]

Satan was hindering Satan? Why is that good? That is what the Pharisees told Jesus that Satan was casting out Satan, and now you have the ECF stating Satan was holding himself back, and you agree with that premise.

Would you say the papacy was already at work in the OT, as demonic possession, and Pagan Rome, under Satanic control was casting out those demons in the name of Satan? Just like the Pharisees did?

God used the armies of pagan Rome to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD.

There is no reason why He similarly did not subsequently use pagan Rome to delay the emergence of papal Rome.

Your Satan was in reality God.

Bad for you; good for Him.

 

[Brakelite]

So when Jesus said the church would be killed for His sake, Paul went behind the back of Jesus and prevented that from happening?

You make no sense.

You do not understand the dynamics that were in operation throughout those early centuries. The church was persecuted first by the Jews, aka Saul. Then pagan Rome came to the party and continued those (satanic) attacks for centuries. What was the effect on the church at that time? It grew strong, and through the grace of God, those persecutions resulted in the church turning the world upside down. Those persecutions and open war against the true faith prompted the believers to draw closer to Christ, and through His power they overcame all opposition and spread the gospel to all the world, even to the point where Constantine, in order to preserve the Empire, 'became' a Christian, and declared Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Up to this point, Satan had been utterly failing in his war against the church. So he decided to change his focus and direction. He couldn't destroy the church through violence, so he chose to use deception.
Constantine's so called conversion was the beginning of this. The persecutions against Christians ceased, at least for the time being. But what was just around the corner was far worse. And God knew this, which is why Jesus repeatedly warned the church to let "no man deceive you". Yes, Jesus warned against persecution, but only a couple of times. The real danger was coming in the form of compromise and deception. Hence His allowing pagan Rome to continue in power until such time as the church around the world was in such a state of preparation as to recognise compromise and deception when it came.
So when pagan Rome fell, in the 5th century, and the church rose to political power in Rome, calling itself 'Catholic', and introducing all manner of wrong doctrine and errors and pagan symbolism in order to appease and make things easy for the pagans to feel "comfortable" in calling themselves Christian, the church outside of Rome such as in Asia, Britain, southern France, northern Italy, and the far East, resisted the changes and compromises to truth, recognising the papacy as the Antichrist of scripture and the man of sin, and resisted his self proclaimed authority over their spiritual destiny.
If God can use a donkey and speak through that animal to censure his prophet, He can use a pagan nation to protect His church.
So yes, the historic situation over those centuries previously followed the prophetic picture. And all the early church fathers recognised this, as they knew the times in which they lived. They could see the desolations that the barbarian tribes were bringing down upon the Empire, and those ECFs themselves were warning the church that soon a greater enemy would arise. And some of them were subsequently deceived and unknowingly became a part of the very system they were warning against.

 

[Phoneman777]

So when Jesus said the church would be killed for His sake, Paul went behind the back of Jesus and prevented that from happening?

You make no sense.

The same God Who told us Christians would be killed for His sake ALSO set an example that we ought to take precautions to avoid that:

• was not Moses placed in a little ark?
• didn't God detour Israel "they see war and they return to Egypt"?
• didn't Nehemiah's wall builders work while armed and ready to repel an attack?
• didn't He send Joseph and Mary down to Egypt?

It is you and your Jesuit Futurist nonsense that makes no sense - and you STILL haven't offered a reason - whether reasonable or not - as to why a man who boldly preached Jesus from palaces to pavement would all of a sudden get cold feet about your "holy spirit restrainer, have you?

See, that's why I'm a Protestant Historicist - and when you realize only too late that Jesuit errors cannot save you, you'll not have me to blame.

 

[Timtofly]

God used the armies of pagan Rome to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD.

There is no reason why He similarly did not subsequently use pagan Rome to delay the emergence of papal Rome.

Your Satan was in reality God.

Bad for you; good for Him.

Still not making any sense. I don't have a Satan. Now you seem to be implying the Holy Spirit is Satan, and that is as much sense of this post I can make out.

You have taken a concept that was thought up 500 years ago, and inserted it into God's Word as Scripture.

How do you defend there was a delay in papal rome? Was there a delay in Nebuchadnezzar being born, or should he have been born at a different time? Should Rome have happened before Greece to prove your point? Did God use Greece to delay Pagan Rome?

Do you agree there never existed a 5th kingdom, but God skipped from the 4th kingdom to the 6th kingdom? You are defending human theology of the ECF's, great. You cannot defend God's Word though, as you just make nonsense statements when it comes to Scripture.

 

[Brakelite]

Still not making any sense. I don't have a Satan. Now you seem to be implying the Holy Spirit is Satan, and that is as much sense of this post I can make out.

You have taken a concept that was thought up 500 years ago, and inserted it into God's Word as Scripture.

How do you defend there was a delay in papal rome? Was there a delay in Nebuchadnezzar being born, or should he have been born at a different time? Should Rome have happened before Greece to prove your point? Did God use Greece to delay Pagan Rome?

Do you agree there never existed a 5th kingdom, but God skipped from the 4th kingdom to the 6th kingdom? You are defending human theology of the ECF's, great. You cannot defend God's Word though, as you just make nonsense statements when it comes to Scripture.

Does not God have the power to sustain kingdoms if it is His will and purpose to do so?

 

[Timtofly]

You do not understand the dynamics that were in operation throughout those early centuries. The church was persecuted first by the Jews, aka Saul. Then pagan Rome came to the party and continued those (satanic) attacks for centuries. What was the effect on the church at that time? It grew strong, and through the grace of God, those persecutions resulted in the church turning the world upside down. Those persecutions and open war against the true faith prompted the believers to draw closer to Christ, and through His power they overcame all opposition and spread the gospel to all the world, even to the point where Constantine, in order to preserve the Empire, 'became' a Christian, and declared Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Up to this point, Satan had been utterly failing in his war against the church. So he decided to change his focus and direction. He couldn't destroy the church through violence, so he chose to use deception.
Constantine's so called conversion was the beginning of this. The persecutions against Christians ceased, at least for the time being. But what was just around the corner was far worse. And God knew this, which is why Jesus repeatedly warned the church to let "no man deceive you". Yes, Jesus warned against persecution, but only a couple of times. The real danger was coming in the form of compromise and deception.

I understand all that. That is not even the argument I have with the other posters.

Hence His allowing pagan Rome to continue in power until such time as the church around the world was in such a state of preparation as to recognise compromise and deception when it came.
So when pagan Rome fell, in the 5th century, and the church rose to political power in Rome, calling itself 'Catholic', and introducing all manner of wrong doctrine and errors and pagan symbolism in order to appease and make things easy for the pagans to feel "comfortable" in calling themselves Christian, the church outside of Rome such as in Asia, Britain, southern France, northern Italy, and the far East, resisted the changes and compromises to truth, recognising the papacy as the Antichrist of scripture and the man of sin, and resisted his self proclaimed authority over their spiritual destiny.

Paul was talking about Satan as the "man of sin". The Holy Spirit is still holding Satan back, and won't let up. That you all think that it was pagan Rome holding back apostasy, and then deception won out in the end, you have Paul's writings so twisted, no wonder God's Word has to be declared symbolic, so you can insert more human deception via theology into Scripture.

I am not sure why some think history stopped at any point in the past, and all Scripture has been fulfilled, thus nothing is left to happen but deceived humans stumbling around in darkness, because the light already came and left again.

If God can use a donkey and speak through that animal to censure his prophet, He can use a pagan nation to protect His church.
So yes, the historic situation over those centuries previously followed the prophetic picture. And all the early church fathers recognised this, as they knew the times in which they lived. They could see the desolations that the barbarian tribes were bringing down upon the Empire, and those ECFs themselves were warning the church that soon a greater enemy would arise. And some of them were subsequently deceived and unknowingly became a part of the very system they were warning against.

You can make up all the claims you want about history, but using God's Word as proof of your alleged dogmatism, is also deception. It is called changing God's Word to prove your belief system, instead of seeking the Holy Spirit for guidance in interpretation of God's Word.

I accept history. I accept that Daniel saw as far as the Reformation. You call the 4th kingdom pagan Rome. I call the 5th kingdom the ten toes between pagan Rome and the Reformation. I accept the church grew like a mountain and covered the entire earth after the Reformation, because it was a stone rolling and gaining momentum by the Holy Spirit as Christ cut out by God, and not man.

Then you all say that is wrong, because some humans have a better reason other than the Holy Spirit, and that is Satan held back Satan. Which is exactly what the Pharisees claimed about Jesus, that He was Satan casting out Satan. Do you not see the irony in so called theology? At least you don't falsely accuse me of being a "jesuit" as if that is the sole proprietary form of futurism. There seems to be as many variations of amil as there are futurist. The only thing I see in the future related to the topic is the Second Coming, Satan being outed as the man of sin, and the Sabbath Day of the Lord. And obviously, all these amil posters don't have anything better to do, than falsely accuse the brethren, who don't feel the need to put their faith in trust in human ideology.

 

[Timtofly]

It is you and your Jesuit Futurist nonsense that makes no sense - and you STILL haven't offered a reason - whether reasonable or not - as to why a man who boldly preached Jesus from palaces to pavement would all of a sudden get cold feet about your "holy spirit restrainer, have you?

What does Paul having cold feet have to do with anything?

What Paul wrote is still in effect today. Not that it was fulfilled 500 years ago, as you imagine.

 

[Timtofly]

Does not God have the power to sustain kingdoms if it is His will and purpose to do so?

That was not the point of the poster's post.

God appoints kingdoms all the time throughout history. That does not have anything to do with Paul's statements in those verses, that the poster does not even stick with but compares apples to oranges, and changes the subject out of spite.

"Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him."

God gave the dream to Nebuchadnezzar as a secret revealed. So that Daniel could prove the dream was from God, and not Daniel. Of course God knew and planned the Reformation from Genesis 1. Then you all seem to give the credit to pagan Rome, and then twist Scripture to prove your point. God may have used Pagan Rome, for what that is worth, but those verses should not be used to make the point. The point Paul was making is still a future event. We should already know and understand there would be 5 kingdoms that are fallen because the Reformation was the point the stone cut out ended the 5th kingdom. The 6th kingdom is mortally wounded. The Holy Spirit is still holding Satan back as always.

"That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come."

The Sabbath Day of the Lord will not start until the Holy Spirit is removed, and Satan is revealed as the man of sin.

Are you saying the Day of the Lord started at the Reformation, because of this other interpretation that papal Rome is the "man of sin"? The topic is the Day of the Lord, not a prophetic announcement concerning the Reformation. Historist may understand history, but their interpretation of God's Word to prove that history has some major holes that clearly contradict the context of what Paul was describing.

 

[covenantee]

That was not the point of the poster's post.

It certainly was my point.

Brakelite got it.

You didn't, even though you quoted Daniel 2:21 which affirms it.

God did not permit the removal of the kingdom of pagan Rome before His time.

Scripturally obvious.

As ECF Lactantius said, "Beseech the God of heaven that the Roman State might be preserved, lest more speedily than we suppose, that hateful tyrant should come."

Lactantius got it.

Seems only you don't.

 

[Timtofly]

It certainly was my point.

Brakelite got it.

You didn't, even though you quoted Daniel 2:21 which affirms it.

God did not permit the removal of the kingdom of pagan Rome before His time.

Scripturally obvious.

As ECF Lactantius said, "Beseech the God of heaven that the Roman State might be preserved, lest more speedily than we suppose, that hateful tyrant should come."

Lactantius got it.

Seems only you don't.

Daniel 2:21 does not confirm your post, as you made no point in your post on the topic that you are wrong about.

One point does not mean the other point is correct.

You are attributing to God's Word a human created opinion that was wrong then, and still wrong today.

I understand that you will never agree that Satan is the "tyrant" and "man of sin". Pagan Rome did not hold back the man of sin.

For one thing, the papacy became apostate when it forsook God's will in favor of human theology. The apostate church had to re-write the actual history of the office of the pope to cover up the point of apostasy.

Romans were becoming Christians, so to call them pagan romans is not even historically correct.

 

[covenantee]

Daniel 2:21 does not confirm your post, as you made no point in your post on the topic that you are wrong about.

One point does not mean the other point is correct.

You are attributing to God's Word a human created opinion that was wrong then, and still wrong today.

I understand that you will never agree that Satan is the "tyrant" and "man of sin". Pagan Rome did not hold back the man of sin.

For one thing, the papacy became apostate when it forsook God's will in favor of human theology. The apostate church had to re-write the actual history of the office of the pope to cover up the point of apostasy.

Romans were becoming Christians, so to call them pagan romans is not even historically correct.

Daniel 2:21 does not confirm your post

Daniel 2:21 affirms my post. Thanks for quoting it.

I understand that you will never agree that Satan is the "tyrant" and "man of sin".

The ECFs knew who he would be. They were correct.

Pagan Rome did not hold back the man of sin.

The ECFs knew that pagan Rome withheld the man of sin. They were correct.

Romans were becoming Christians, so to call them pagan romans is not even historically correct.

Copy/paste verbatim my quote calling Christians pagan Romans.