Will the real "Antichrist" please stand up?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, everyone.

It's extremely interesting all the fabrications that have arisen regarding the "Antichrist." Seems that it started when someone thought that the 70th Seven ("Week") of Daniel 9:24-27 should be equated with the "tribulation" of which Yeshua` spoke in the Olivet Discourse. Hence, someone started to say "the seven years of tribulation" and "the seven-year Tribulation," as though the Bible actually called it that!

Let's investigate this critter (colloquialism for "creature") a bit more thoroughly:

The following should be a collection of what we know to be true regarding that person that the Scripture actually calls "the beast" and "the man of sin" or "the man of lawlessness."

First, ironically, this person is never said to be the "Antichrist." That term is for ANYONE who "opposes the Messiah." The Greek word "antichristos" (or its plural "antichristoi") is only found five times in four verses of the New Testament (and NEVER in the OT):

1 John 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
KJV


1 John 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
KJV


1 John 4:3
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
KJV


2 John 7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
KJV


Strong's Dictionary of the Greek Language says this about the word:

NT:500 antichristos (an-tee'-khris-tos); from NT:473 and NT:5547; an opponent of the Messiah:
KJV - antichrist.

NT:473 anti (an-tee'); a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):
KJV - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

NT:5547 Christos (khris-tos'); from NT:5548; anointed, i.e. the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus:
KJV - Christ.

NT:5548 chrioo (khree'-o); probably akin to NT:5530 through the idea of contact; to smear or rub with oil, i.e. (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service:
KJV - anoint.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

I find it misleading that "christos" is capitalized in its English transliteration. There were many "christoi," just as there are many "antichristoi," and not all of them were in reference to the Son of God. And, I also find it ironic that Strong's doesn't make the connection here between this Greek word and the Hebrew word from which it is translated "mashiayach":

OT:4898 mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh); from OT:4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:
KJV - anointed, Messiah.

OT:4886 maashach (maw-shakh'); a primitive root; to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by implication, to consecrate; also to paint:
KJV - anoint, paint.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Therefore, one must know what and who is a "messiah" before one can intelligently say what an "antichrist" is. Will discuss more later...
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
1,964
208
63
66
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Or maybe we should just take scripture at face value.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come (a singular, future event/person), even now are there many antichrists; (preceded by the signs of the many) whereby we know that it is the last time.

There is only one Christ, but many christians just as there will be one Anti-Christ followed by many who are spiritually anti-christs (ians). per Matt. 24:4,5,11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Trekson said:
Or maybe we should just take scripture at face value.
Hi Trekson,

I agree with your proposition, and suggest that we start at Rev. 13.


With Best Regards,
DD


-- Who would seek to veil the apparent?!? --
 

Eric E Stahl

New Member
May 28, 2013
388
13
0
Pa. USA
God will give the antichrist all the people who rejected Jesus when they had the cance to trust in him.


2 Thessalonias 2:6-12
6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
DaDad said:
Hi Trekson,

I agree with your proposition, and suggest that we start at Rev. 13.
Trekson said:
Go ahead and start then.

#1. This Mouth of the Lion, Body of the Leopard, and Feet of the Bear appear to correlate to Daniel 7. And the "Beast" itself appears to fulfill the "dreadful" beast depiction:

Daniel 7:24
24 ... After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.


Which three governments fulfilled the Lion/Bear/Leopard (actually a Tiger); and who is this composite "dreadful" beast?




With Best Regards,
DD
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
1,964
208
63
66
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Dadad, Well, it's pretty well known that the Lion = Babylon (modern day Iraq), the Bear = Medo-Persia (modern day, Iran) and the Leopard/Tiger = the Grecian Empire (modern day, Syria). Interestingly, from Dan. 9:26, it is "the people of the prince that shall come to destroy the the city and the sanctuary". So it wasn't the future prince himself or the nation they represented which as we all know was Rome. However, the actual people that were of the Roman armies were recruits from Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt and Arabia, the ancestors of the modern day Muslim peoples.

I know many believe in a modern day revived western Roman empire, but I do not. I think we should be looking for a modern day eastern Roman empire. The description in Rev. 13:2 is simply of a man from the Mediterranean area and they do not represent a conglomerate of literal nations. A man with a mixed heritage of Iraqian, Iranian and Syrian blood but I also think he will be at least half Jewish of the line of David to fulfill the Messiah role that the Jews are still waiting for.

We know that the legs of Iron was Rome with the eastern and western regions depicted by the two legs. The feet and toes are of a government that doesn't exist yet and this is the same fourth beast of Dan. 7. It is both strong and weak as depicted by the mixture of iron and clay. This kingdom will survive until Christ destroys it at His coming per Dan. 7:27.

Let's extend Dan. 7:24 to Rev. 17:10-11 - "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition." I know you have your opinon but here is mine. Let me say though, that while I'll list the nations they represented I believe this verse is speaking of the actual human leaders of theses nations who all had in common the persecution of Israel. The first five would be Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece. The 6th would be Rome, the 7th is unknown though I lean towards the Ottoman Turks over Nazi Germany. The 8th will be the A/C and specifically an individual. He is "of the seven" meaning he shares their bloodlines (Muslim). I think the phrase "that was, is not, even he is the eighth" is referencing his lifespan within the context of the future that John is writing about. He was (Rev. 13:1-2), is not (Rev. 13:3a) even he is the eighth (Rev. 13:3b).

One final thought from Rev. 17:6 - "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." You can't look into the past to identify this "woman". Rev. is a book of the future and this portrays a time of persecution of christians that hasn't happened yet but is even now just beyond the horizon, imho.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Trekson said:
Hi Dadad, Well, it's pretty well known that the Lion = Babylon (modern day Iraq), the Bear = Medo-Persia ...
Hi Trekson,

Thanks for the note back. And where "it's pretty well known", it's also false. Thus my agreement with your statement that "we should just take scripture at face value". So please allow me to provide "Scripture at face value":

1. Daniel 12:4 & Daniel 12:9 both DEMAND that the prophecies are end-time. Who is it that parses these words to suggest ANCIENT fulfillments?

2. Daniel 2:45 DEMANDS five world empires per the sequence Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold, = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE. Who is it that ignores the Intelligent Design of this verse?

3. Daniel 2:41 DEMANDS this FIFTH empire is a "divided KINGDOM". Who is it that ascribes this entity as though it were an extension of the Roman Empire?
(Please note that virtually ALL world governments are "REPUBLICS", for the Roman empire was NEVER replaced, but simply ceased. -- i.e., " ... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ..." --. thus the Iron residue in the empire of Clay.)

4. My first grade teacher insisted that FIVE ≠ FOUR, so Chapter 2 CANNOT parallel Chapter 7.

5. Even if my first grate teacher was WRONG, the prophetic depictions of Chapter 7 do not match the Historical ancient empires.


So once again, I agree with your assertion: "we should just take scripture at face value". So now are you up to your own exhortation?


With Best Regards,
DD
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
1,964
208
63
66
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi DD, Let's take your points one at a time:

1. Daniel 12:4 & Daniel 12:9 both DEMAND that the prophecies are end-time. Who is it that parses these words to suggest ANCIENT fulfillments?

If you think these verses are speaking of the Book of Daniel as a whole, you are sadly mistaken. The "book" of vs. 4 & 9 is the same book from vs. 1, ie the Book of Life! The angels interpret most of the visions so there are no "hidden" things except what is yet to be fulfilled.

2. Daniel 2:45 DEMANDS five world empires per the sequence Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold, = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE. Who is it that ignores the Intelligent Design of this verse?

We obviously have different ways of understanding how the Bible was written. I do not believe in "automatic writing" or that they were in some sort of spiritual trance taking dictation from the Holy Spirit. I believe that God inspired men to write from their own knowledge and experience in their own words as God brought to their minds the memories about the events to which they are writing. That is the only way that many of the minor time and place discrepancies within the gospels accounts of event can be understood. With that being said, I don't believe the order of vs. 45 has any special significance at all. The order was in the description of the statue, Daniel just recites all elements as they came to his mind at the moment.

3. Daniel 2:41 DEMANDS this FIFTH empire is a "divided KINGDOM". Who is it that ascribes this entity as though it were an extension of the Roman Empire?
(Please note that virtually ALL world governments are "REPUBLICS", for the Roman empire was NEVER replaced, but simply ceased. -- i.e., " ... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ..." --. thus the Iron residue in the empire of Clay.)

Any conglomeration of individual nations with there own agendas will be divided. That's all that means.

4. My first grade teacher insisted that FIVE ≠ FOUR, so Chapter 2 CANNOT parallel Chapter 7.

The fifth kingdom/leader IS in cp. 7, you're just not seeing it. It is the little horn of vs. 8.

5. Even if my first grate teacher was WRONG, the prophetic depictions of Chapter 7 do not match the Historical ancient empires.

Yes, they do match, just different descriptions of the same nations/leaders with beast with teeth of iron being Rome. The little horn is the eqivalent to the feet and toes of iron and clay.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Trekson said:
Hi DD, Let's take your points one at a time:

1. Daniel 12:4 & Daniel 12:9 both DEMAND that the prophecies are end-time. Who is it that parses these words to suggest ANCIENT fulfillments?

If you think these verses are speaking of the Book of Daniel as a whole, you are sadly mistaken.

Hi Trekson,

It appears that your statement, "we should just take scripture at face value" was not literal. Have you considered a job in Washington?


Sorry to hear,
DaDad
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, all.

Okay, let's play a little game:

Everyone give me the name of one of the messiahs (the christs).

I'll start: Yeshua` (Jesus). Okay, name another. (And, you can't use the same one someone else has already named.)
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
1,964
208
63
66
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Dadad, When there is a prophecy with a historical context with a proven fulfillment, why search aimlessly for some hidden truth that isn't there. You're just trying to make spiritual mountains out of literary molehills. When the scriptures make sense, seek no other sense. Understanding the scriptures and what they mean take some time, maturity and a little wisdom, you're just not there yet.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Trekson said:
When there is a prophecy with a historical context with a proven fulfillment, why search aimlessly for some hidden truth that isn't there.
Hi Trekson,

Apparently you are unfamiliar with both Prophecy and History. As such, please allow me to provide some insight which you are obviously unaware of:



In the book, “Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation,” John Walvoord writes regarding the interpretation of the seventy “weeks":


1. Per Walvoord: "...Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.”, P.218

2. Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218

4. Per Montgomery: "... efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.", P. 217

5. Per Walvoord: "Some amillenarians, however, use a literal year time unit for the first sixty-nine weeks but an indefinite period for the last seven years, as in the case of Philip Mauro...", P. 218

6. Per Montgomery: "... the great Catholic chronographers ... as well as those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.. And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation.", P. 217

7. Per Young, regarding "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem": "This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God." , P. 224 -

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971


8. Per Newton: "We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbring used by no nation."

Isaac Newton, "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)", http://www.isaacnewton.ca/daniel_apocalypse/pt1ch10.html



Of course, this is just a sample of the church's ignorance regarding this Book. And in fact the church has no clue as to the other Prophetic Chapters, including 2, 7, 8, 11 & 12; and the related Revelation 13 & 17, -- where this discussion is derived. So finally, perhaps you merely need more maturity and wisdom to perceive that the church has deceived you..



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, DaDad.

DaDad said:
Hi Trekson,

Apparently you are unfamiliar with both Prophecy and History. As such, please allow me to provide some insight which you are obviously unaware of:



In the book, “Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation,” John Walvoord writes regarding the interpretation of the seventy “weeks":


1. Per Walvoord: "...Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.”, P.218

2. Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218

4. Per Montgomery: "... efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.", P. 217

5. Per Walvoord: "Some amillenarians, however, use a literal year time unit for the first sixty-nine weeks but an indefinite period for the last seven years, as in the case of Philip Mauro...", P. 218

6. Per Montgomery: "... the great Catholic chronographers ... as well as those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.. And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation.", P. 217

7. Per Young, regarding "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem": "This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God." , P. 224 -

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971


8. Per Newton: "We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbring used by no nation."

Isaac Newton, "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)", http://www.isaacnewton.ca/daniel_apocalypse/pt1ch10.html



Of course, this is just a sample of the church's ignorance regarding this Book. And in fact the church has no clue as to the other Prophetic Chapters, including 2, 7, 8, 11 & 12; and the related Revelation 13 & 17, -- where this discussion is derived. So finally, perhaps you merely need more maturity and wisdom to perceive that the church has deceived you..



With Best Regards,
DD
That's simply because the Christian world (often erroneously called "the Church") has NO CLUE about the Hebrew language! 'Nuf said.

Now, back to my game, please. (This is my thread, after all.)
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Enoch and DaDad.

Enoch2010 is correct.
DaDad, I challenge your answers. Point to the reference or to the anointing.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
DaDad, I challenge your answers. Point to the reference or to the anointing.
Contemporary English Version (CEV) Footnote:

9.25 the Chosen Leader: Or “a chosen leader.” In Hebrew the word “chosen” means “to pour oil (on someone’s head).” In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person’s head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.


mashiyach -- H4899

Lev 4:3
If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.


Furthermore, I can readily defend this from a specific Prophetic passage and Historical fulfillment for these two specific individuals. -- But I don't throw pearls to scoffers. :mellow:




-- Now I challenge you to explain the Intelligent Design sequences:

Daniel 2:35
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold ... = 4,5,3,2,1 = FIVE

Daniel 2:45
... the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold ... = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,754
44
48
65
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, DaDad.

DaDad said:
Contemporary English Version (CEV) Footnote:

9.25 the Chosen Leader: Or “a chosen leader.” In Hebrew the word “chosen” means “to pour oil (on someone’s head).” In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person’s head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.


mashiyach -- H4899

Lev 4:3
If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.


Furthermore, I can readily defend this from a specific Prophetic passage and Historical fulfillment for these two specific individuals. -- But I don't throw pearls to scoffers. :mellow:




-- Now I challenge you to explain the Intelligent Design sequences:

Daniel 2:35
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold ... = 4,5,3,2,1 = FIVE

Daniel 2:45
... the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold ... = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE



With Best Regards,
DD
First, you don't have to lecture me on the Hebrew word mashiyach, but you didn't include the book with the chapter and verse reference. I hope that wasn't a reference to DANIEL 9:25! That proved NOTHING about "David BenGurion & Yitzhak Rabin -- both referred to in Scripture," as you claimed.

Second, I don't appreciate you calling me a "scoffer." Your references to 2 Peter 3:3 and Matthew 7:6 were inappropriate. Not only do they not apply, but you have YANKED them out of context and misused them.

Third, as far as the REST of what you asked DEMANDED, wrong subject.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
#1.. You are NOT the only audience.

#2. The citation stands as amplified by the CEV.

#3. You discount that which you do not understand (?how was that for a euphemism?), and continue as such. But if you apologize, then we move on.

#4. I provided which you requested (and gladly so), but you do not and are unrepentant.

#5. If you are as intelligent as you pretend, then you should grasp that you challenged me, and I challenged you. And if you wish to skew the conversation such that I "DEMANDED" from you, then please consider your unequal application of personal responsibility (... another euphemism ...) in your ~taking offense~.


Retrobyter said:
I challenge your answers. ...

DaDad said:
-- Now I challenge you ...

Hope this helps,
DD