The spirit of antichrist

[Klee shay]

I have seen a lot of disagreement in regards to the meanings of basic scripture of late, and wanted to discuss one such scriputure which "defines" whether we follow the spirit of God or are indeed deceived by the spirit of antichrist.

If we do not follow the criteria set out by scripture, then are we judging righteous judgement when we accuse others of following the spirit of antichrist?

Firstly 1 John 4:2-3

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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."

Would this not merely indicate those who do not believe Jesus was Christ (prophesied of) come in the flesh - in other words, Orthodox Jews who are still waiting for the Messiah to come (denying Jesus)? Or would it indicated those who do not believe Jesus was God himself, come in the flesh?

There is another scripture we also need to address in this chapter 1 John 4:15

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him (the confessor), and he in God."

Isn't it therefore the simple criteria to confess Jesus is the Son of God, which enables the Spirit of God to abide in us?

I would like to see where the additional scriptural criteria comes from, which enables a non-trinitarian (in other words someone who doesn't believe Jesus was God himself) to be accused of following the spirit of antichrist? Primarily a non-trinitarian already believes Christ was the Son of God come in the flesh.

I raise this scriptural criteria that we may all judge righteous judgement of each other. I would also like to add that my example of Orthodox Jews is not meant to demean. I would like to confess that I don't know a whole lot about Orthodox Jews; or even if I've used the correct terminology to represent their beliefs? It is merely an example of a section of society I was lead to believe, deny Jesus as the Messiah foretold of in scripture. My apologies in advance if I have named the wrong group.

 

[Georges]

As far as Orth Jews.....it wasn't until the Bar Kochba rebellion in the 100's that Pharisaic Jews began dispising the Pharisaic Jewish Christians. Why? Because when the Jewish army (comprised of Jews and Christians) finally rebelled against Rome, the Jewish Christians refused to fight and left the army because a famous rabbi proclaimed Simon bar Kochba as the expected Messiah...of course the Jewish Christians knew Jesus was the Messiah therefore they broke ranks and headed to Pella. After that point in history, the Pharisaic Jews began to hate their Christian brothers. Up until that point, there were many, many Jewish Christians...

Sorry for the side track..

 

[Klee shay]

That's fine Georges...I was hoping you could give me some background on the example I used. :D

Just so I understand correctly however:

1. An Orthodox Jew doesn't believe Jesus was the Messiah prophesied of.
2. A Jewish Christian believes Jesus was the Messiah prophesied of.

If this is correct then do you know what today's religion of Judaism comprises of? Is it like modern Christianity with different branches that all believe something slightly different?

I appreciate your input on this because I have used an example I'd rather represent truth in rather than fallacy.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Yeah, modern day Judaism is alot like present day Christianity. Broken into many many pieces.

 

[mutzrein]

I believe many in Christendom are putting the cart before the horse. They have adopted something of the Spirit (scripture) and have turned it into a modern day set of rules. Or at least that is the way they seem to want to interpret it.

So, rather than the confession of the mouth that RESULTS from the Spirit of God that dwells within a man, they say that it is the confession that DETERMINES whether or not that man has the Spirit.

 

[Georges]

That's fine Georges...I was hoping you could give me some background on the example I used. :D

Just so I understand correctly however:

1. An Orthodox Jew (Modern) doesn't believe Jesus was the Messiah prophesied of.
2. A Jewish Christian believes Jesus was (is :wink: ) the Messiah prophesied of.

If this is correct then do you know what today's religion of Judaism comprises of?

Worshipping God and waiting for the Messiah...same as it's always been. In the future, as prophecied, they will recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Is it like modern Christianity with different branches that all believe something slightly different?

Not as bad as the divisions that Christianity sprouted...but yes there are divisions...But the things they have in common....1. God is one and 2. Messiah is a man.

I appreciate your input on this because I have used an example I'd rather represent truth in rather than fallacy.

Both Christianity and Judaism are at fault for Nazarene Judaism not taking hold like it should have...that's history...

 

[TanNinety]

1 John 4:2-3

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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."

I would like to see where the additional scriptural criteria comes from, which enables a non-trinitarian (in other words someone who doesn't believe Jesus was God himself) to be accused of following the spirit of antichrist?

Not to be judgmental but it seems from the scripture you provided that trinitarians are the ones following the spirit of the antichrist for they believe Jesus was not just flesh but possessed God Spirit in a hypostatic union.

Who demands that one should accept that Jesus was fully God when He was on earth? And anyone who doesn't believe in such is labeled a cult. But you can't add to what John already says ...every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God(not a cult).

I would definitely like to see a trinitarian take up this task of showing how anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus as God the Son but believes in The Son of God is a non-believer from the scriptures without adding or taking away from it.

 

[wavy]

Well, klee, in my experience trinitarians explain those passages in this way: There were many false Messiah's come in the flesh. Why would he need to put emphasis on some one coming in the flesh if we all come in the flesh? Therefore John must be speaking of a preexistent, divine individual who has taken on human flesh. He (originally being in heaven as the Son) came in the flesh (the incarnation).

But I disagree with this. Why? If John wanted to make a point about the preexistence of Yeshua, I believe he would have just said anyone who does not believe he preexisted, i.e. came down from heaven is an anti-christ.

Why confuse people with terms like "come in the flesh"? Why not just say, "Anyone who does not believe the Messiah existed eternally in heaven as Almighty God is an anti-christ"?

No, but the use of "come in the flesh", imo, indicates that some were saying the promised Messiah didn't come in the flesh, i.e. he came by some other means. He was a phantom, or some type of spirit being who merely feigned human flesh. That would seem to fit the context more. "Yeshua the Messiah" didn't come in the flesh from heaven because "Yeshua the Messiah" didn't exist in heaven. Catch what I mean: this is not about his preexistence, this is about his nature and the title given to him here. So let's say he did exist in heaven before he came here. He wasn't known as Yeshua the Messiah until he got here, therefore "Yeshua the Messiah" could not have come in the flesh from heaven.

I believe John is arguing for his humanity, not for his deity.

 

[gingercat]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

 

[mutzrein]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

Hi Ginger - are you suggesting that a different name or title can have a bearing on our relationship with God or . . . ?

 

[gingercat]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

Hi Ginger - are you suggesting that a different name or title can have a bearing on our relationship with God or . . . ?

No,

People who keep changing the Bible are in deep trouble and people cooperate with those changing it is in deep trouble also.

 

[mutzrein]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

Hi Ginger - are you suggesting that a different name or title can have a bearing on our relationship with God or . . . ?

No,

People who keep changing the Bible are in deep trouble and people cooperate with those changing it is in deep trouble also.

OK thanks - so, whether I referred to God or Jehovah would that make any difference to you?

 

[gingercat]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

Hi Ginger - are you suggesting that a different name or title can have a bearing on our relationship with God or . . . ?

No,

People who keep changing the Bible are in deep trouble and people cooperate with those changing it is in deep trouble also.

OK thanks - so, whether I referred to God or Jehovah would that make any difference to you?

In the Lord's prayer

Our Father who art in heaven hollowed be thy name...

How can you sanctify God without using His name. "Hollowed be thy NAME"

 

[mutzrein]

It does not seem to be of God that they are sending confusing translation using God and Jesus with the same titile. It has not been been this way at beginning. The Bible used Jehovah or Yaweh. Many translators stopped using God's name later on.

Hi Ginger - are you suggesting that a different name or title can have a bearing on our relationship with God or . . . ?

No,

People who keep changing the Bible are in deep trouble and people cooperate with those changing it is in deep trouble also.

OK thanks - so, whether I referred to God or Jehovah would that make any difference to you?

In the Lord's prayer

Our Father who art in heaven hollowed be thy name...

How can you sanctify God without using His name. "Hollowed be thy NAME"

Well I don't think we can sanctify God - He sanctifies us. But that is not the issue I would say.

But we certainly acknowledge his holiness by saying to Him that He is Holy. I mean, I acknowledge this when I pray and speak to him and I know He hears me. There is no lessening of answered prayer or reduced relationship because I talk to Him as God and my heavenly Father. In fact I believe that this is the intimacy of relationship that He desires with those whose hearts are His - and it is not dependant on having the right 'communication' protocol as some would see it. What do you think?

 

[gingercat]

I have my own understanding of relationship with God and Jesus. I bellieve there are so many warm and fuzy and vague understandings of relationship with God. What is yours?

 

[mutzrein]

I have my own understanding of relationship with God and Jesus. I bellieve there are so many warm and fuzy and vague understandings of relationship with God. What is yours?

Do you mean THE relationship between Jesus and God or . . . MY relationship with Jesus and God?

 

[gingercat]

Your relationship with God and Jesus.

 

[mutzrein]

Your relationship with God and Jesus.

Jesus always pointed to his father (God). It is the Father to whom I speak and pray. It is the Father's will I seek to do. It is the Father that I worship. As Jesus said, "no-one can come unto the Father but by me and no-one can come to me unless the Father draws him." Jesus made the way for us to have a relationship with the Father and as the Father's children we are made co-heirs with Christ of an eternal inheritance.

Oh the wondrous grace of God that He should make a way for those of us who have been called according to His purposes, to fall at His feet and cry out 'Abba Father'. And as He (God) has glorified his son, and has placed all things under His feet (except himself of course) I give honour and glory unto the lamb of God who was slain, that I may raised with Him to newness of life.

 

[gingercat]

ok, Id dont get what you want to say.

Would you clerify it by actual relationship with God? How do you act your relationship with God?

 

[mutzrein]

ok, Id dont get what you want to say.

Would you clerify it by actual relationship with God? How do you act your relationship with God?

Do you mean how do I live for God or what is my walk with Him? Is this what you are asking?