Nicolaitans?

JLB said:

Honestly Jethro,

I have noticed this reoccurring issue with you. When someone seemingly doesn't agree with every detail of your post, you seem to think they are entirely wrong in what they say.

Click to expand...

Stop right there.

Don't try to turn this on me. You failed and I expect you to admit it.

Jethro Bodine said:

Dear Doulous Iesou,

"27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” (Daniel 9:27 NASB)

"23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.25 He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.26 But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever." (Daniel 7:23-26 NASB)

"7 After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, [g]this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts." ( Daniel 7:7-8 NASB)

3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders..." (2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 NASB)

"Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; 4 they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?”5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him." (Revelation 13:1-7 NASB)

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18 NASB)

Click to expand...

Quoting texts without demonstrating a connection doesn't do anything.

for_his_glory said:

Doulos lesou this is my reply to your last two post.


you said: Yes, you provide Scripture that you think confirms your opinion.

I provide scripture for others to confirm of what I teach to be truth or error.

Click to expand...

No, you provide Scripture that you believe backs up your opinion, this "what I teach" part is your opinion. It's your view or judgment on the matter, but that doesn't mean that it is substantiated as fact.

you said: Scripture often uses metaphors, how is it then "literal?" It's actually best to handle the passage by considering what genre of writing it is.

Metaphors are mostly used in the parables that Jesus taught and it's up to us to understand them. Which by the way they are very clear to understand. Scripture is very literal in the actual accounts of those Prophets and Disciples in their witness and testimonies and very Spiritual in that of prophecies given.

Click to expand...

This is simply false, Apocalyptic literature is FULL of metaphors. Take for instance the Valley of Dry Bones, which is a metaphor for the people of Israel coming out of exile.

you said: Why do you do this? Won't the Holy Spirit just grant you complete and infallible understanding?

The Holy Spirit does give me understanding when I study the history of a person such as Ezra, Ezekiel Moses, Abraham Etc. Etc. or country or war to get a background of the event or person.

Click to expand...

This means you have the ability to have infallible knowledge not just about the Bible, but about history?

you said: You're basically creating this elite class of believers who have been "enlightened," and then sheep who just follow the leader.

There is actually those two classes of people. I do not know how you study nor do you know how I study. Scripture may say something different to you then it does for me and that is why we come together to discuss our beliefs. We might not always agree, but we also have to stand on our belief unless someone can prove us wrong as I am always opened for correction when need be. Yes I said the Holy Spirit speaks through me as my mouth can not speak of things I have yet to learn.

Click to expand...

How can someone correct you if the "Holy Spirit speaks through [you] as [your] mouth can not speak of things [you] have yet to learn?"

You're saying that the Holy Spirit gives you infallible knowledge of Scripture, and what you say is directly inspired by the HS and yet your views are open to discussion?

I'm sorry, this just isn't a functional doctrine you have created.

you said: Only those that agree with YOU are the good ones right?

No, we need to agree with what God has already spoken in His word. Again this is why we need to be ready in and out of season to be able to answer others.

I have given one single commentary which is once again Wilmington's Guide to the Bible. All commentaries give scripture to back up what they speak, but not all scripture given does, but only sounds logical as one reads it with a carnal mind.

Why would i want to give my opinion of what I think scripture is saying as this would lead others to believe an opinion instead of what the word truly does say. I can not speak that of what I do not understand thus I am teachable always as we could never exhaust the word of God as we are ever learning, but at times not coming into understanding.

Click to expand...

Because that would be the honest thing to do, which is to admit that this is your opinion, but the truth is in the Scriptures. You are a fallible teacher, and that is the infallible message, they shouldn't take your words as the Holy Spirit's words.

Jethro Bodine said:

Hierarchy = Categorization of a group of people according to calling and giftedness = the Church


Do you have a historical source to show us the hierarchy you describe was part of the Nicolatians system of worship? I've never heard of it before.

Click to expand...

I keep asking for the same thing... no evidence to speak of.

JLB said:

I don't know about a "system of Worship", but this definition might help.

Nico-, combinatory form of nīko, "victory" in Greek, and laos means people, or more specifically, the laity; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".


JLB

Click to expand...

They are named the Nicolaitans because they followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas, not because of their form of leadership. Fail.

Doulos Iesou said:

Quoting texts without demonstrating a connection doesn't do anything.

Click to expand...

What you need to do is explain the difference between anti-christ being here already and anti-christ coming later. Why is it necessary that John make the distinction if anti-christ later is just the same anti-christ as now? Language is much, much more than just words.

The language suggests the very embodiment of anti-christ is coming, not just the attitude of anti-christ already in the world even in his day. If this coming is not the man of lawlessness spoken about by Daniel and Paul then what is the anti-christ that is coming? Use scripture to explain, just as we are doing to defend he's probably talking about the man of lawlessness of the fourth kingdom yet to come, the very embodiment of everything opposed to and 'anti' Christ.

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared..." (1 John 2:18 NASB)

Jethro Bodine said:

What you need to do is explain the difference between anti-christ being here already and anti-christ coming later.

Click to expand...

First of all, John is the only one to specifically use the term antichrist and he doesn't infer that there is still one to come. He said, you have heard that antichrist is coming (no definite article) and then went on to say that MANY have actually appeared.

Why is it necessary that John make the distinction if anti-christ later is just the same anti-christ as now? Language is much, much more than just words.

Click to expand...

If he distinguishes someone as antichrist by denying the Son and the Father then surely one would expect far more to come in the future, I still see nothing in his writings that designate the antichrist as some kind of ultimate bad guy false messiah.

The language suggests the very embodiment of anti-christ is coming, not just the attitude of anti-christ already in the world even in his day.

Click to expand...

Where does the language suggest this? Nor have I stated that it is simply the "attitude" of the antichrist already in the world, but actual antichrists as the text clearly indicates.

If this coming is not the man of lawlessness spoken about by Daniel and Paul then what is the anti-christ that is coming?

Click to expand...

Perhaps he is clarifying their teachings, but what is clear is that this antichrist is not just one individual but is many and is designated by denying the Father and the Son.

My point is to point out how foolish it is to say such solid things about the end times because Scripture doesn't shed too much clarity on the subject. John's writings simply do not mesh with what you're trying to make it say.

Use scripture to explain, just as we are doing to defend he's probably talking about the man of lawlessness of the fourth kingdom yet to come, the very embodiment of everything opposed to and 'anti' Christ.

Click to expand...

All you have is inferential evidence, nothing that clearly indicates that this is what the antichrist is. While I keep pointing to everything John is saying which does not jive with that interpretation. For the following reasons.

1) There is not one, but many antichrists.
2) They are present at the time of John's writings.
3) They are designated by denying the Father and the Son.

Jethro, thank you for opening my eyes as to see it is my commentary on scripture as I had to think hard about that when you asked me and I never saw it as commentary, but only teaching. All teachers of the word of God commentate on what the scripture is speaking to them as even scripture can have different meaning to different people as it speaks to them individually at times and speaks for the whole of mankind. It's only when those commentaries come from a socially acceptable word that I have a problem with as this allows one to be mislead in the word if they are not studying for themselves. Many will believe a lie never coming into full understanding if they do not compare scripture with scripture and have the Holy Spirit confirm that of what is being taught them. I am always opened for discussion of those things I teach as I am always approachable to anyone. I would never claim to know everything and like all of us we are ever learning as we could never exhaust Gods word.

Thank you Jethro and God bless you

Jethro Bodine said:

Stop right there.

Don't try to turn this on me. You failed and I expect you to admit it.

Click to expand...

Failed?

You sir have failed to provide scripture, only your opinion.

I gave you many scriptures that teach us that a man is disqualified from leadership if he does not have the appropriate Godly character to Carry out his ministry to the Church.


Here is your statement that earmarks the fundamental flaw in your doctrine -

Hierarchy = Categorization of a group of people according to calling and giftedness = the Church

Click to expand...

Here is my scriptural answer to your statement that spotlights your flawed statement -

What you have just described is the foundational problem we have in the Church today.

A "gifted" person is placed in leadership over the humble and faithful one who serves quietly as unto the Lord, with the character and nature of Jesus Christ.

Saul was the peoples choice.

David was chosen by God.


Here are the qualifications of leadership, of which giftedness is not a deciding factor!

Bishop -

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 1 Timothy 3:1-7

and again -

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. 10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work. Titus 1:7-16

Deacons -

Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 3:8-13

Elders -
17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages." 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. 21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. 1 Timothy 5:17-21

I would add that, most in "leadership" positions in the local churches are "family" and "friends" of the Pastor.


Godly Character and moral excellence, as well as a man having his house in order is the deciding factor for leadership in the Church.

There is nothing to "turn around' on you, this is what the scriptures teach.


JLB

Doulos Iesou said:

They are named the Nicolaitans because they followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas, not because of their form of leadership. Fail.

Click to expand...

Could you provide the scriptures that teach us that Nicolatians were followers of a man name Nicolas.


JLB

JLB said:

Could you provide the scriptures that teach us that Nicolatians were followers of a man name Nicolas.


JLB

Click to expand...

This comes from the testimony of the Early Church Fathers who tell us where this heresy came from.

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.[1]

[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-...RENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_I/Chapter_XXVI.

Doulos Iesou said:

This comes from the testimony of the Early Church Fathers who tell us where this heresy came from.

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.[1]

[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-...RENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_I/Chapter_XXVI.

Click to expand...

Outside of Revelation, chapter two, there is no known sect in Church history (biblical or secular) referred to by the name “Nicolaitans.” Some early writers tried unsuccessfully to connect this group of individuals with Nicolas of Antioch; and others, following in their steps, try this even today. However, such a connection cannot be established, which leaves one with a sole method of identification — the meaning of the word itself.

The reference can only be to a sect in the church in Pergamos (known also to those in Ephesus) whose practices and doctrine are self-explained by the term that the Spirit of God used to identify them. Apart from this means of identification, nothing can be known about the Nicolaitans.

The word “Nicolaitans” is a transliterated, compound word from the Greek text (nikolaites), derived from nike (“a victor,” “a conqueror”) and laos (“people”). Thus, the word simply means, “to be victorious over the people,” “to conquer the people.”


Using the meaning of the name itself after this fashion, the Nicolaitans would have to be identified as individuals (leaders) in the Church who had subjugated the remaining Christians to their self-imposed authority — individuals comprising a ruling, priestly class (the clergy over the laity), something condemned by Scripture in no uncertain terms.

“Nicolaitanism” is simply a corruption of delegated authority within the Church (or a local church), exercising this authority after a forbidden pattern — after the pattern set forth by those in the world.


The Nicolas of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33. It has been questioned whether this Nicolas was connected with the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation, and if so, how closely. The Nicolaitans themselves, at least as early as the time of Irenaeus, claimed him as their founder.[15] It is noticeable (though the documents themselves sit not of much weight as evidence) that in two instances the Nicolaitans are said to be "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι).[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

Now that I have cited my extra-biblical source and you have cited your extra-biblical source, now what?


The Nicolas of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33.



JLB

JLB said:

Outside of Revelation, chapter two, there is no known sect in Church history (biblical or secular) referred to by the name “Nicolaitans.” Some early writers tried unsuccessfully to connect this group of individuals with Nicolas of Antioch; and others, following in their steps, try this even today. However, such a connection cannot be established, which leaves one with a sole method of identification — the meaning of the word itself.

The reference can only be to a sect in the church in Pergamos (known also to those in Ephesus) whose practices and doctrine are self-explained by the term that the Spirit of God used to identify them. Apart from this means of identification, nothing can be known about the Nicolaitans.

The word “Nicolaitans” is a transliterated, compound word from the Greek text (nikolaites), derived from nike (“a victor,” “a conqueror”) and laos (“people”). Thus, the word simply means, “to be victorious over the people,” “to conquer the people.”


Using the meaning of the name itself after this fashion, the Nicolaitans would have to be identified as individuals (leaders) in the Church who had subjugated the remaining Christians to their self-imposed authority — individuals comprising a ruling, priestly class (the clergy over the laity), something condemned by Scripture in no uncertain terms.

“Nicolaitanism” is simply a corruption of delegated authority within the Church (or a local church), exercising this authority after a forbidden pattern — after the pattern set forth by those in the world.

Click to expand...

When you completely copy and paste an argument without providing the source it is called plagiarism and is against the ToS per section 2.6.

Nothing in the passages actually denote their error being derived from having an authority structure that is hierarchical, but rather from their lawlessness, therefore I think Irenaeus' explanation of it being derived from the name of the founder, be it the same Nicolas as Acts or not is more likely.

Also, etymology is hardly ever used as the straight forward definition of the word, which people who study Koine Greek know.

JLB said:

Outside of Revelation, chapter two, there is no known sect in Church history (biblical or secular) referred to by the name “Nicolaitans.” Some early writers tried unsuccessfully to connect this group of individuals with Nicolas of Antioch; and others, following in their steps, try this even today. However, such a connection cannot be established, which leaves one with a sole method of identification — the meaning of the word itself.

The reference can only be to a sect in the church in Pergamos (known also to those in Ephesus) whose practices and doctrine are self-explained by the term that the Spirit of God used to identify them. Apart from this means of identification, nothing can be known about the Nicolaitans.

The word “Nicolaitans” is a transliterated, compound word from the Greek text (nikolaites), derived from nike (“a victor,” “a conqueror”) and laos (“people”). Thus, the word simply means, “to be victorious over the people,” “to conquer the people.”


Using the meaning of the name itself after this fashion, the Nicolaitans would have to be identified as individuals (leaders) in the Church who had subjugated the remaining Christians to their self-imposed authority — individuals comprising a ruling, priestly class (the clergy over the laity), something condemned by Scripture in no uncertain terms.

“Nicolaitanism” is simply a corruption of delegated authority within the Church (or a local church), exercising this authority after a forbidden pattern — after the pattern set forth by those in the world.


The Nicolas of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33. It has been questioned whether this Nicolas was connected with the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation, and if so, how closely. The Nicolaitans themselves, at least as early as the time of Irenaeus, claimed him as their founder.[15] It is noticeable (though the documents themselves sit not of much weight as evidence) that in two instances the Nicolaitans are said to be "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι).[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

Now that I have cited my extra-biblical source and you have cited your extra-biblical source, now what?


The Nicolas of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33.



JLB

Click to expand...

9 pages in, but I think that is very a plausible explanation as to what the Nicoliatans represented. I understand, especially from the old testament, that the name of a person or the name of a place often revealed characteristics of the individual or events involving the place. Could you look at the Pharisees as being a type of Nicoliatan then? Perhaps Jeremiah 5:30-31 warns us of this, but my people are foolish and without understanding, the prophets prophesy falsely and the priest bears rule by there means, and my people love to have it so. As the spirit of the Lord was to be a king over the children of Israel and dwell in there hearts, they sought after a king they could see to rule them, and the Lord gave them Saul. It is not so different today, The Lord has promised that he would dwell in our hearts, and that he would translate us into his kingdom, a kingdom of Spirit, but the people still seek after a man to rule them.

JLB said:

Failed?

You sir have failed to provide scripture, only your opinion.

I gave you many scriptures that teach us that a man is disqualified from leadership if he does not have the appropriate Godly character to Carry out his ministry to the Church.

Click to expand...

JLB, thankfully I'm laughing about this now. This is not even the argument you started and which I've been addressing, lol!

Doulos Iesou said:

First of all, John is the only one to specifically use the term antichrist and he doesn't infer that there is still one to come. He said, you have heard that antichrist is coming (no definite article) and then went on to say that MANY have actually appeared.


If he distinguishes someone as antichrist by denying the Son and the Father then surely one would expect far more to come in the future, I still see nothing in his writings that designate the antichrist as some kind of ultimate bad guy false messiah.


Where does the language suggest this? Nor have I stated that it is simply the "attitude" of the antichrist already in the world, but actual antichrists as the text clearly indicates.


Perhaps he is clarifying their teachings, but what is clear is that this antichrist is not just one individual but is many and is designated by denying the Father and the Son.

My point is to point out how foolish it is to say such solid things about the end times because Scripture doesn't shed too much clarity on the subject. John's writings simply do not mesh with what you're trying to make it say.


All you have is inferential evidence, nothing that clearly indicates that this is what the antichrist is. While I keep pointing to everything John is saying which does not jive with that interpretation. For the following reasons.

1) There is not one, but many antichrists.
2) They are present at the time of John's writings.
3) They are designated by denying the Father and the Son.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your dying for a hill not worth dying for. By definition, the man of lawlessness that is coming is by even your argument an anti-christ, but you insist we not call him THE anti-christ. And the reason being?

Are you simply arguing that we should be careful to call the coming eighth king, the epitome of the spirit of anti-christ, the man of lawlessness, not the anit-christ? Keep your gun in your holster and leave the hill alone. Really.

I see John making a clear distinction between coming anti-christ, and MANY anti-christs present even in his day. There would be no need to make the distinction if they were one and the same thing in all ways.

Jethro Bodine said:

I'm pretty sure your dying for a hill not worth dying for. By definition, the man of lawlessness that is coming is by even your argument an anti-christ, but you insist we not call him THE anti-christ. And the reason being?

Click to expand...

The reason being is because there is no one known as THE antichrist, never does John infer that there is a singular antichrist.

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7 (ESV)

Anyone who does not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the antichrist. How does this fit with your belief that there is a singular antichrist known as the man of lawlessness.

Are you simply arguing that we should be careful to call the coming eighth king, the epitome of the spirit of anti-christ, the man of lawlessness, not the anit-christ? Keep your gun in your holster and leave the hill alone. Really.

Click to expand...

I'm just pointing to Scripture, pointing out the folly of your arguments and saying that it is foolish to have such strong opinions about these apocalyptic texts. How do you know that the man of lawlessness represents one person and not a dominion?

I see John making a clear distinction between coming anti-christ, and MANY anti-christs present even in his day.

Click to expand...

You see what you want to see apparently.

There would be no need to make the distinction if they were one and the same thing in all ways.

Click to expand...

No he is basically saying that you have heard antichrist is coming (no definite article, he doesn't say THE antichrist) and then he says that even now many antichrists have come. He is identifying who an antichrist is and does so quite clearly.

Because we know there are many antichrists, some of which have already come, whether or not one or the other in particular is "the" antichrist is a subjective matter based on the context of who is accepting the particular imposter as their false christ. There is then no objective antichrist because there are many lies that can oppose the single Truth.

Doulos Iesou said:

No he is basically saying that you have heard antichrist is coming (no definite article, he doesn't say THE antichrist)

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 1 John 2:18

No John is definitely saying that THE ANTICHRIST is coming.

There will be a false messiah that will lead many astray, through many signs and lying wonders.
It be be an apostasy!

This man of sin, who is also called son of perdition as well as the lawless one will go to the temple of God and proclaim himself as God [Messiah], which being a man he will be proclaiming himself as God in the flesh or Messiah.

This false Messiah must come first.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

The ANTICHRIST IS COMING!


JLB

ezrider said:

I asked a question about the Nicolaitans, not sure how this became a history lesson on the Papacy. You will not know who the antichrist is until you first remove the log that is in your own eye.

Click to expand...

I could not find anything clear on who the Nicolaitans were. Let me know if you find anything out there that is solid?