The final anti-Christ

[DivineNames]

Regardless of who is involved, I think people should not make claims that people are liars. If A (unwisely and ungenerously in my view) goes ahead and says that B is liar, then A should be prepared to defend that claim if and when "called on it". If A cannot defend the claim, A should retract (at the very least).

What seems to be a lie can simply be an error.

As I have previously accused a couple of Christians here of dishonesty in debate, I couldn't agree with you that the accusation shouldn't be made.

To be able to say that someone is talking nonsense, or is a liar, is necessary in my view. People do sometimes talk nonsense, and they do sometimes tell lies. I think its fair enough to use that kind of language. I do not see it as a "flame".


"What seems to be a lie can simply be an error"


I'm sure Gary would have known full well that he was hardly justified in making the accusation of a "lie".

I have shown that Gary has been talking nonsense, or making very suspect claims, on a number of occasions. I don't think I have ever accused him of dishonesty merely for that.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

BTW Geo, nice analogy in the above post. I try and avoid subjects I know little about. Someone that doesn't know Jesus will have little clue what an antichrist is or how to identify The Antichrist.

Christians are as varied in their interpretation of who/what the AntiChrist is as they are on most other doctrines. Some say it's the Pope, some say he will be a Jew, some say he will be Satan incarnate - and regarding the details, such as the time of the appearance of this AntiChrist, you can find a great many differing ideas also among Christians also. In light of this, how much impact should be afforded your condescending remark that "those who don't know Jesus will have little clue" about the AntiChrist, when those "who do know Jesus" can't agree on the subject?

 

[Vic C.]

In light of this, how much impact should be afforded your condescending remark that "those who don't know Jesus will have little clue" about the AntiChrist, when those "who do know Jesus" can't agree on the subject?

None from you, I suppose, but that's ok; I'm not the one that didn't understand Geo's post. Our question is still valid though. Why are you here? You accuse Christians of not agreeing with each other, yet you cry foul when one of us turn the tables on you for disrupting a Christian forum. You have even less in common with us then you claim we have with each other. :-?

 

[D46]

Heidi, Jesus and most everyone else back then used the Greek Septuagint. Guess what was in the Septuagint ?

Not hardly, Vic...Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha either.

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.

Roman Catholics Need It.

According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" â€â€Preface,1914 edition.

So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine â€â€even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!



Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It.

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.

So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices â€â€the same ones that mess up the New Testament â€â€dressed up in pretty packaging.

 

[thessalonian]

Heidi, Jesus and most everyone else back then used the Greek Septuagint. Guess what was in the Septuagint ?

Not hardly, Vic...Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha either.

This of course is a red herring. He did not quote other books of the OT either. Further there are many clear illusions to things that are only found in the dueterocanonicals such as in Hebrews I believe it is, Paul illudes to the story in Macabees about the woman and 7 sons who were martyred.

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Apparently you are wrong that he did not use it.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
:-D

So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles.

A verifiable lie considering the above link I provided. :-?

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha.

I think your overplaying it here. This bit of evidence is used with a string of other evidence to present the case for the Apocrypha. On it's own as you are attempting to use it, I agree it is not very convincing. It's just a piece of the puzzle. Many of the pieces you have thrown asside. Other's you have added to the puzzle that belong to another puzzle. Namely, why did the reformers feel they had the authority to remove the dueterocannonicals?


Blessings

 

[Heidi]

The vehement (and oftentimes, downright nasty) argumentation between Christians on dozens of essential doctrines on this forum and many others has only convinced me more and more that there is no real common Spirit involved there. (that is, some supernatural Spirit that is leading and guiding Christians into "all truth") There is a spirit (small "s") of comraderie based on several of the most fundamental doctrines, but no greater amount of "oneness" than can be naturally attributed to any religious group which Christians would claim did not possess the Spirit.

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other, they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side." - Celsus (2nd century)

:D

The battle between Christians is always between the wolves in sheep's clothing and Christ's true sheep. All people have to do is agree with the bible, but many do not. They use the word "interpretation" to justify any belief they have including universal reconciliation.

But clearly,all teachings cannot be right because they contradict each other. So again, there is one truth and that's the exact word of God, not filtering it through the imperfect human mind. The words in the bible exist outside of ourselves and do not contradict each other. All humans have to do is leave them alone and they will know the truth.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

In light of this, how much impact should be afforded your condescending remark that "those who don't know Jesus will have little clue" about the AntiChrist, when those "who do know Jesus" can't agree on the subject?

[quote:2f7b1]None from you, I suppose, but that's ok; I'm not the one that didn't understand Geo's post. Our question is still valid though. Why are you here?

[/quote:2f7b1]

I'll tell you why I'm here if you'll tell me why you folks ignore the hard questions and instead ask me why I'm here. You did it again right there. You said (and with a smug attitude, it seemed to me) that those who didn't know Christ can't be expected to know about this subject. I pointed out that Christians themselves don't all agree on this subject (and many others) which means that at least some Christians must be in the dark because at least some of them have to be wrong. So, your " (non-believers) don't have a clue" quip is also an "in-house" problem for you. I think I made a decent point?

Your answer...

"Why are you here?" :roll:

I'm not crying "foul" but I am beginning to cry "frustration" :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The battle between Christians is always between the wolves in sheep's clothing and Christ's true sheep.

So whenever we have 2 Christians disagreeing over something in the bible, at least one of them is actually not a "true sheep" - that is, a real Christian? The implications there are pretty staggering don't you think?

(Moderator - Am I "disrupting the forum" by drawing attention to what Heidi has clearly indicated here?)

 

[Gary]

So whenever we have 2 Christians disagreeing over something in the bible, at least one of them is actually not a "true sheep" - that is, a real Christian? The implications there are pretty staggering don't you think?

This will explain it to you.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a87.htm



P.S. Why are you here?

:wink:

 

[BradtheImpaler]

So whenever we have 2 Christians disagreeing over something in the bible, at least one of them is actually not a "true sheep" - that is, a real Christian? The implications there are pretty staggering don't you think?

This will explain it to you.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a87.htm

Let me guess - only the Catholic church is correct and unified and the Protestants are the ones in error and disunity? Do I have to read it? This is the only way to try to explain the disunity among Christians - say that only one of the churches is the true one, but as I said, the implications there are staggering, as over half the Christians on this forum would be deemed in rebellion to the true church and therefore to God, if they were to be considered Christians at all.

[quote:631fc]P.S. Why are you here?

:wink:

[/quote:631fc]

Sometimes I just run out of other things to do 8-) (don't you? C'mon, tell the truth :wink

 

[Gary]

So whenever we have 2 Christians disagreeing over something in the bible, at least one of them is actually not a "true sheep" - that is, a real Christian? The implications there are pretty staggering don't you think?

This will explain it to you.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a87.htm

Let me guess - only the Catholic church is correct and unified and the Protestants are the ones in error and disunity? Do I have to read it? This is the only way to try to explain the disunity among Christians - say that only one of the churches is the true one, but as I said, the implications there are staggering, as over half the Christians on this forum would be deemed in rebellion to the true church and therefore to God, if they were to be considered Christians at all.

You guessed wrong!

:D :-D :D

 

[Imagican]

Brad, my friend, the biggest problem is two thousand years worth of 'man' between us and Christ. For thousands of years the Hebrews were pretty much unified in their understanding of God. It took a very rigid, religious based society in order to maintain this unity. Boy have things changed.

Between the Catholics hijacking the Word and forcing their beliefs and the Protestants taking a bunch of this baggage with them, there is not much left to offer unity in a 'universal understanding' of scripture.

There is 'truth' though, and it's in the Word. Much of it is irrelevant to salvation but, yes, there is much individual interpretation that is hard to unify.

The important thing is a personal relationship with God through His Son. Much of that which divides the Christian community is based on 'religion' instead of the Word. Most religion tries to teach that one CAN'T develope this personal relationship 'without them'. One MUST be a member of 'their' group in order for God to hear their cries for forgiveness.

The Bible is NOT the answer to EVERYTHING. But, it is a start. it is certainly an introduction to Father and Son. What one does 'after' the introduction is as individual as grains of sand. To be part of the 'body' certainly doesn't mean that we must be unified robots.

And, there is different understanding revealed to different people. Do all physicist agree with each other? Do all medical technicians agree with each other? How about politicians? Of course not. On some basic principles they do, but in overall understanding, it varies greatly.

It's no different with God. There are some that are meant to understand different things than others. Some that are to understand more, and some less. (I believe less is better). And then there is the fact that many when first touched by the Spirit, believe that they are 'special' and therefore must 'understand' more than anyone else.

Overall, it boils down to individuality. We are still in the flesh no matter how much we may wish to be in the Spirit. The flesh contains all the wars against God and this makes it difficult for us to 'see' or experience the 'love of God'. Pride, greed, avarice, sloth, money, sex, drugs, satan, etc.......... are all things that get in the way of 'complete' understanding and we all suffer to one degree or another these outside influences. There will NEVER be 'complete' unity until Christ returns as King of this World.

 

[DivineNames]

This will explain it to you.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a87.htm

The apparent unity of the Roman Catholic Church is illusory, as any informed Catholic would know. The unity is structural and organizational, but there are serious divisions at all levels, especially between the more liberal and conservative Catholics.

So there are lots of disagreements between Catholics, its not only the Protestants that can't agree what the Bible says. OK, but that doesn't really help your case.

:D

Firstly, the Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians. Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them rather than the magisterium?

Obviously, this kind of argument is only legitimate between Christians.

Secondly, the human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters.

Well yes, on occasion people can misunderstand the, "simplest of matters". However, do human misunderstandings of the "clear truth" of the Bible really explain all the differences in interpretation?

So, it is unfair to say that since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is not clear. The problem is not with the Bible but with us.

The author makes a claim here, and they do not seem to be any doubt about it. Have they given any strong argument for it?

The doctrinal differences among Christians are not due to our authority (the Bible) but due to the limitations and sinfulness of the human heart.

So the Bible is clear and understandable, and you have the Holy Spirit to help you, and yet you Christians can't agree what the Bible is saying. This can be blamed on human sinfulness. Its definitely not the fault of the Bible...

 

[PDoug]

But once you receive the Holy Spirit, you will see how every single word in the bible has a meaning and a purpose and it can be related to all future words in the bible.

If this was the case why do we not see agreement between Christians, churches or religions? If all Chrisitians are guided by the same holy spirit then all would come to the same conclusions.

Thank you, Wertbag. This truth is like not seeing the "nose on our faces" - the most obvious evidence against Christianity is that Jesus' prayer in John 17, that Christians would be one even as Jesus and the Father are one (I don't suppose Jesus and the Father are in doctrinal disagreement?) has not come to pass, in fact, the situation's getting worse all the time. The vehement (and oftentimes, downright nasty) argumentation between Christians on dozens of essential doctrines on this forum and many others has only convinced me more and more that there is no real common Spirit involved there. (that is, some supernatural Spirit that is leading and guiding Christians into "all truth") There is a spirit (small "s") of comraderie based on several of the most fundamental doctrines, but no greater amount of "oneness" than can be naturally attributed to any religious group which Christians would claim did not possess the Spirit.

As far as I'm concerned you are correct. The Church is fractious - just as the Jews are fractious. This bears out the fact that the Church - just like the Jews - is currently not being led by a single Spirit. Rather than trying to figure out what the problem is, Christians and Jews just ignore it and continue to act religiously.

Many times Christians try to fix the problem by having a 'revival' of some sort, in which they try hard to rectify the problem through religious activities. Things then only get worse. They do not realize that they are trying to fix the problem through works - rather than by having faith: and that they are bound to fail because of it. Further, they almost all claim that having faith is merely believing directly in God, yet when they directly believe in God they see no tell tale improvements in their behavior - or no unity in their thinking and their efforts.

It is a terrible situation humanity is in: but that is why those who have faith correctly will rule above all other beings in creation after Christ. All of mankind is being brutally assaulted by every kind of distraction and passion, that pulls him away from the truth. It is only those few who manage to have faith satisfactorily, who will be able to weather the storm, and act in ways that are consistent with what are written in the scriptures - in a natural fashion.

 

[soma]

Those who preach to separate and break up the church are the anti-christ. They accuse Christians of not being Christian, scientist of not being Christian, and it is all done for them to feel better. This is against Christ who wanted to help others. They use the Bible to condemn others not uplift them. The Bible is to bring all to Christ, not to chase people away.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

So whenever we have 2 Christians disagreeing over something in the bible, at least one of them is actually not a "true sheep" - that is, a real Christian? The implications there are pretty staggering don't you think?

This will explain it to you.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a87.htm

Let me guess - only the Catholic church is correct and unified and the Protestants are the ones in error and disunity? Do I have to read it? This is the only way to try to explain the disunity among Christians - say that only one of the churches is the true one, but as I said, the implications there are staggering, as over half the Christians on this forum would be deemed in rebellion to the true church and therefore to God, if they were to be considered Christians at all.

You guessed wrong!

:D :-D :D

Just trying to get around having to read the link :wink:

Okay, read it. This doesn't address Heidi's point, so i don't see how this link "explains it"? Heidi seems to think that those on the wrong end of a doctrinal interpretation are false sheep, that is, not really Christians (unless she mispoke but i don't see where she attempted to clarify that?)

The article attributes dissension among Christians to "sinfulness" but i don't think it implies that those in the wrong are not Christians at all? But in any case, how is sinfulness among Christians (keeping them from unity) an excuse? If Christians have the truth, the Spirit, they should have the unity and it should be manifest. Any false religious group could use the same excuse of themselves - they're not perfect yet so they don't have perfect unity yet.

Anything that would seperate Christianity from all other religions (evidence-wise) is "put-off", and it's all very suspicious...

Christians have a unifying Spirit but we won't see true unity among the churches until Jesus comes back...

Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled the prophecies but the ones he didn't fulfill he will when he comes back...

We don't see miracles like we did in the bible but we will when Jesus comes back (or just before he comes back)...

 

[Henry]

I see some are being baited here, by this guy. Do not let this man drag you into his world, but rather PRAY the Lord would open his eyes to the world of light and truth.

Oh the ignorance of the world is amazing.

 

[Imagican]

I think that the forums are here so that we can discuss issues that are important to Christians. Otherwise we could just offer Blogs on subjects without the ability of others to offer their views.

I feel that much of what Brad offers is closer to the 'truth' than those that would insist that 'their way' is the 'only way'. Christ certainly didn't bring churches together, that's obvious. And He also stated that those that followed Him would become enemies of the world. It makes much sense that there will be NO complete unity, (even in the body), until His return. For it is NOT until His return that 'all knees shall bow'.

Henry, it seems as if you are the one trying to 'bait' someone with your personal attacks. If you have something to offer that contradicts what was offered, by all means, spit it out. Otherwise, reading and listening might be a better way to learn than trying to goad others into personal confrontation. I mean this with all respect, my friend, but I have noticed that you often 'jump in' with nothing to offer other than an insult to someone that you disagree with. It's our enemies that we are to forgive and love Henry. Loving those that you agree with and your friends takes NO EFFORT AT ALL. And even if you are right and we are all wrong, humor us with a little feedback instead of insults please.

Nice post Brad and we can only hope that God is able to overcome our pride in thinking that we are capable of understand everything.

 

[chris414]

If this was the case why do we not see agreement between Christians, churches or religions? If all Chrisitians are guided by the same holy spirit then all would come to the same conclusions.

The only conclusion i can come to is that we are simply not listening to the Holy Spirit.

 

[soma]

So the people who don't speak of unity, don't know unity and are mis-lead? They only speak of division.