Who is the AntiChrist? (Identifying Him)

[Timtofly]

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

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

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

Copy/paste verbatim my quote calling Christians pagan Romans.

Who is this man of sin, if you are dogmatic it is a "he"?

The whole point is that Rome had converted to Christianity. One could argue if they were actual Christians or not. You are calling them pagan Rome, as that is whom you claim held back the papacy instead of the Christians in Rome. It would be like calling America pagan because the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians. What makes America pagan, the Christians or the apostate Christians being held back?

Did you not put this in your post:

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."

Was he talking about the state of Rome under the influence of Christianity, and the power of the Holy Spirit, or the pagans still out there unconverted?

Are you denying your own argument about pagan Rome from 27 BC as the means of holding back the papacy for 500 years?

 

[covenantee]

Who is this man of sin, if you are dogmatic it is a "he"?

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic that it will be one "he". But historicism recognizes that it was the apostate papacy, headed by the succession of papal "he's".

The whole point is that Rome had converted to Christianity.

Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century.

Was he talking about the state of Rome under the influence of Christianity

He was talking about the Rome which was still persecuting Christians, but which he recognized would ultimately be far outdone in persecution by the "hateful tyrant" of the emerging apostate papal antichrist.

It was.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic that it will be one "he". But historicism recognizes that it was the apostate papacy, headed by the succession of papal "he's".

Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century.

He was talking about the Rome which was still persecuting Christians, but which he recognized would ultimately be far outdone in persecution by the "hateful tyrant" of the emerging apostate papal antichrist.

It was.

Both you and Jesuit Futurists are wrong, because you both come from human theology instead of God's Word.

 

[covenantee]

Both you and Jesuit Futurists are wrong, because you both come from human theology instead of God's Word.

I have the united unanimous witness of the historic defenders of the true faith on my side.

You don't.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic that it will be one "he". But historicism recognizes that it was the apostate papacy, headed by the succession of papal "he's".

Certainly not. Christianity was subjected to repeated persecutions until the fourth century.

From your link:
Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. The public examination of Cyprian by the proconsul in Carthage, Galerius Maximus, on 14 September 258 has been preserved:[60]: 
Can a Christian be a martyr and an apostate at the same time?

He was talking about the Rome which was still persecuting Christians, but which he recognized would ultimately be far outdone in persecution by the "hateful tyrant" of the emerging apostate papal antichrist.

It was.

The claim that the pope is the Antichrist has been part of anti-Catholic rhetoric since the Reformation, when it was needed to justify the Protestant Reformers’ desire to leave the Catholic Church...
...To make the prophecies of the Antichrist fit the pope, some even claimed that “the temple of God” in which the Antichrist pretends to be God (2 Thess. 2:4) is the Vatican.

Although the Fathers of the Church speculated on the Antichrist in various ways, they would never have agreed. They showed the temple to be the Jewish temple, rebuilt by Antichrist in Jerusalem. Rather than the bishop of Rome, the early Fathers identified the Antichrist as a government official—a king coming to power in the ruins of the Roman Empire. He would probably be Jewish, possibly from the tribe of Dan. And most importantly, rather than claiming like the pope to be the vicar or emissary of Jesus Christ, he would claim that Jesus was not the Christ but that he was instead. He would then seduce many of the Jewish people by attempting to fulfill the political aspirations they held for the Messiah.

The quotes that follow illustrate both the different ideas they had about the Antichrist and how different their conception was from the anti-papal idea that arose in later centuries.

What the Early Church Believed: The Antichrist

The claim that the pope is the Antichrist has been part of anti-Catholic rhetoric since the Reformation. We debunk this common myth.

www.catholic.com

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I have the united unanimous witness of the historic defenders of the true faith on my side.

You don't.

Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Are they on your side too?

Two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), proposed the futurist view. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben-Ezra", and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. Up until the 19th century, the futurist view was generally shunned by non-Catholics, being seen as a self-defense of the papacy against the claims of the historicist reformers.[3]

The futurist view has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, and is currently followed by millions of Christians.[4] However, while this interpretation is popular among U.S. Evangelicals, it is generally rejected by adherents of Catholicism,[5][6] Eastern Orthodoxy,[7] Lutheranism, and Reformed Christianity.[8]

Futurism (Christianity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic and banned at the same time? It's the same logic for an apostate martyr. I love oxymorons! Your answer could be, "Popes aren't true believers, so they don't count as martyrs. Here's a clue covenantee, the Romans never executed apostates.
Are you getting any of this?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

He was talking about the Rome which was still persecuting Christians, but which he recognized would ultimately be far outdone in persecution by the "hateful tyrant" of the emerging apostate papal antichrist.

Please, quote your source that Lactantius made this recognition, or knock off the revisionist slander.

Lactantius | Early Church, Latin Apologist, Roman Empire

Lactantius was a Christian apologist and one of the most reprinted of the Latin Church Fathers, whose Divinae institutiones (“Divine Precepts”), a classically styled philosophical refutation of early-4th-century anti-Christian tracts, was the first systematic Latin account of the Christian attitude

www.britannica.com

Lactantius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Timtofly]

I have the united unanimous witness of the historic defenders of the true faith on my side.

You don't.

Exactly, human theology is on your side, not the Word of God.

All I have on my side is God's Word. I don't have human theology on my side.

I have already stated that many times.

 

[covenantee]

Exactly, human theology is on your side, not the Word of God.

All I have on my side is God's Word. I don't have human theology on my side.

I have already stated that many times.

Yes, the whole wide world is aware that you're the word of god, and you alone.

Where can we come to worship you?

What did you say is the name of your cult?

Your claim is the classic trademark thereof.

 

[covenantee]

Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Are they on your side too?

Two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), proposed the futurist view. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben-Ezra", and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. Up until the 19th century, the futurist view was generally shunned by non-Catholics, being seen as a self-defense of the papacy against the claims of the historicist reformers.[3]

The futurist view has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, and is currently followed by millions of Christians.[4] However, while this interpretation is popular among U.S. Evangelicals, it is generally rejected by adherents of Catholicism,[5][6] Eastern Orthodoxy,[7] Lutheranism, and Reformed Christianity.[8]

Futurism (Christianity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesuit futurism is dogmatic and banned at the same time? It's the same logic for an apostate martyr. I love oxymorons! Your answer could be, "Popes aren't true believers, so they don't count as martyrs. Here's a clue covenantee, the Romans never executed apostates.
Are you getting any of this?

Evidently you think that apostasy was an overnight rather than centuries-long phenomenon.

The pope was not labeled "antichrist" until 991 by Bishop Arnulf.

See those centuries?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Evidently you think that apostasy was an overnight rather than centuries-long phenomenon.

I think its both, and your reply is a typical derailer that doesn't address my post you quoted. Apostacy is a post-baptismal denial of a revealed truth, so an apostate must be a baptized Christian before they can meet the proper definition of apostate. Your definition of apostate is not biblical. An unbaptized person cannot be an apostate.
Evidently you contradict God's promises that He would protect His Church from teaching error, or even apostacy. The Bible rules that out. You don't.

The pope was not labeled "antichrist" until 991 by Bishop Arnulf.

And how was it received? It's another lie by omission.

See those centuries?

At the Synod of Saint-Basle de Verzy in 991 Arnulf resisted papal interference, with very aggressive rhetoric.[7] His speech there, O lugenda Roma, was passed down in a text composed by Gerbert d'Aurillac, who became Pope Sylvester II at the end of the decade.[8] Gerbert's version took remarks by Arnulf, and put them into connected form. It also emphasised the attack on the pope of the time, John XV, over the destructive remarks about the institution of the papacy.[9] The business of the meeting was to deal with Arnulf, Archbishop of Reims, as a rebel, part of the aftermath of Hugh Capet's assumption of power from the Carolingians.[10] The speech attributed to Arnulf as prolocutor, and in particular his characterisation of the Pope as Antichrist, was quoted subsequently, for example, by the Magdeburg Centuriators[11] and by James I of England.[12]

Arnulf (bishop of Orléans) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Magdeburg Centuriators were Lutherans, and James I was an Sottish king that made Catholicism illegal. That's why they quoted Arnulf.

IMO, Arnulf was an apostate, that you hold as authoritive, and anybody else who spreads lies about the Pope. Again, the pagan Romans did not execute apostates, but they executed plenty of Popes.

 

[covenantee]

A predictable surfeit of institutional dogma bereft of supporting Scripture.

Apostacy is a post-baptismal denial of a revealed truth

an apostate must be a baptized Christian before they can meet the proper definition of apostate

Your definition of apostate is not biblical.

An unbaptized person cannot be an apostate.

Apostasy definition.

No mention of baptism.

Evidently you contradict God's promises that He would protect His Church from teaching error, or even apostacy.

Scripture?

So Ribera and Lacunza were not of His Church in their apostate teaching of error.

I concur.

 

[Phoneman777]

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

Of course, you don't think it's highly irregular that a man who never feared to tirelessly preach Christ from palace to pavement would suddenly refuse to name the "Holy Spirit as the One with a boot on the neck of the Man of Sin"...because acknowledging the irregularity would require an explanation for it, and the only reasonable explanation shows how wrong it is to claim the Holy Spirit is Paul's Restrainer.

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

Yes, just keep on ignoring the elephant in the room and keep on wrongly believing what history and common sense proves otherwise.

 

[Douggg]

Two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), proposed the futurist view.

While both Lucunza and Ribera were right about the Pope not being the Antichrist, what I read about Lucunza at Wikipedia is that his view of the Antichrist is wrong, and does not match the view of modern futurists nor those of his day.

Lucunza did not write that the Antichrist will be a singular individual, but many individuals making up a system of apostasy that would arise among the churches.

Ribera, on the other hand, was closer to being right. Ribera, according to wikipedia, proposed, the Antichrist, a single individual, would:

• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem
• Abolish the Christian religion
• Deny Jesus Christ
• Destroy Rome
• Be received by the Jews
• Pretend to be God
• Kill the two witnesses of God
• Conquer the world.

 

[Wick Stick]

Simon bar Kokhba - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Acts 28:27

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Evidently you think that apostasy was an overnight rather than centuries-long phenomenon.

The pope was not labeled "antichrist" until 991 by Bishop Arnulf.

See those centuries?

I'll ask you again, since you ran from my question.
Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?

 

[covenantee]

I'll ask you again, since you ran from my question.
Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?

Did they, or would they have, affirmed the following?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[covenantee]

I'll ask you again, since you ran from my question.
Among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?

Did they, or would they have, affirmed the following?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

Are you running?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Did they, or would they have, affirmed the following?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17

What part of "by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church" do you not understand?

1. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”

no context.

1. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

No context. The "Pope as God" argument is ridiculous, no pope has ever claimed to be God.
I'm not talking about cherry picked quotes void of context from the 18th century over a late 2nd century matter. You are running, not me.
For the third time, among those executed under Valerian were Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Sixtus II, Bishop of Rome with his deacons, including Saint Lawrence. Were they martyrs or apostates?

 

[covenantee]

What part of "by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church" do you not understand?

no context.

No context. The "Pope as God" argument is dumb, no pope has ever claimed to be God.
Jumping to misquotes from the 18th century over a late 2nd century matter is not an answer, it's desperation.

Just answer the question.