Who is the antichrist?

[Stormcrow]

So and again you sidestep the issue - saying that the fact that Jesus is God is required by John's message by the mention of his name?

I sidestepped nothing. I also addressed the reason for this in several posts. And I wrote this:

{9} For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Colossians 2:9 (NASB)

Jesus Christ is the whole package! His name implies His work, character and nature! Jesus Christ has come in the flesh: Jesus Christ is God the Father, God the Spirit and God the Son all in one!

{12} "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 (NASB)

If God alone is savior, and Jesus Christ is the only name under heaven by which all men must be saved, then Jesus Christ IS God incarnate!

The devil doesn't care whether people believe in Jesus the man. He does care when they start to believe that He is God "in the flesh."

That's the point of John's passages about antichrist!

John didn't have to explain what he meant to the churches he planted. He doesn't have to explain what he meant to most people who accept that Jesus Christ IS God incarnate.

The greater question is, why should he or anyone else have to explain it to you?

 

[reba]

Okay - I will. I have repeatedly stated that I believe (as you) that Jesus is God. Why do you fail to hear those statements and put emphasis on the fact that I believe that he is flesh (only)? That is NOT what I said. When I say that upon that flesh was poured out the Spirit of God without measure - you change my words and quote me as having said, "Jesus was merely a human upon whom was poured the Spirit" -- like I said that he was a prophet only -- like I was advocating beliefs other than Christianity. Where have I said that I am a Muslim?

With in the above paragraph you say this:

Why do you fail to hear those statements and put emphasis on the fact that I believe that he is flesh (only)?

Here you state He is flesh only as a fact. Is that what you want to say?

EDited:

One thing i see NOWis the difference between (only ) and only duh.... your (only) is referring to put emphasis..

 

[Stormcrow]

And please - once again - I'm asking you to define what you mean by this:

When I say that upon that flesh was poured out the Spirit of God without measure

In your own words, break down what that means to you.

 

[Stormcrow]

I have repeatedly stated that I believe (as you) that Jesus is God.

I've repeatedly stated He is God incarnate. Is that your belief as well?

 

[reba]

As you can see from my question and the last post, Both of you guys are over my head.

So for this simple minded female what the heck are you two arguing about? The more i read the more confused i get....

PS
Thanks for keeping this heavy topic civil

 

[Sparkey]

I've repeatedly stated He is God incarnate. Is that your belief as well?

Sorry, I thought I said that. Simple answer: Yes. That is what I believe.

 

[reba]

Maybe i was not so confused.

 

[Stormcrow]

As you can see from my question and the last post, Both of you guys are over my head.

So for this simple minded female what the heck are you two arguing about? The more i read the more confused i get....

PS
Thanks for keeping this heavy topic civil

The issue seems to lie in the interpretation of John's words about the antichrist in I John 2 and 4.

{22} Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22 (NASB)

Let me make my position clear:

Implicit in John's question in I John 2:22, is the idea that Jesus is more than a man; that He is "the Christ."

In that name, Yeshua Ha'Mashiach (Jesus Christ) we understand (as would John's 1st century readers), that in Him the "fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Col. 2:9

In other words, that Jesus Christ is God "in the flesh."

So, when we read this from John:

{2} By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; {3} and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 1 John 4:2-3 (NASB)

John is not talking here about confessing that a mere mortal named Jesus appeared "in the flesh." He is talking about God coming "in the flesh", and that is the confession that the spirit of antichrist will never make. That is why John tells us to "test the spirits" by this standard.

If he feels so inclined, perhaps Sparrowhawke can explain the problem(s) he has with this view.

 

[jasoncran]

obama.

 

[Stormcrow]

obama.

:biglol

 

[jasoncran]

all in good fun. i'm sure some still think that.:toofunny

i remember reading that some called reagen the antichrist. i bet those same ones now call obama that. go figure.

arent you catholic? i have never heard much on what the rcc says on the ac.

 

[Sparkey]

With in the above paragraph you say this:

Why do you fail to hear those statements and put emphasis on the fact that I believe that he is flesh (only)?

Here you state He is flesh only as a fact. Is that what you want to say?

EDited:

One thing i see NOW is the difference between (only ) and only duh.... your (only) is referring to put emphasis..

Yeah - typing is a problem for everyone. It's sometimes difficult to express well when typing on the internet. What I said that was Jesus came in flesh, not that he was flesh (only).

totopic
Even though my antagonist (Stormcrow) is insisting that I continue to submit to his examination here, I would like to instead return to the discussion: Who is the AntiChrist - and what does the bible teach in 1 John say about him. Why did John say:

"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."

POST #162:
Quoting Stormcrow: "If all we had to confess is that a man named Jesus - who claimed to be sent by God - existed, we could all be saved with such a confession. Such a claim requires no faith whatsoever."

POST #164:
Quoting Stormcrow: "It takes as much faith to say "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" as it does to say YOU have come in the flesh! In other words, none at all."

If Christ is nothing more than a man upon whom the spirit of God was poured - as you allege [Contrary to Stormcrow's accusation, I have NEVER said that] than He is no different than any other man who had the spirit. He would be no better than a prophet (Islam teaches this.)

... are you suggesting you have some "special revelation" that these men are wrong? That they really didn't understand what they were claiming???

Answer: No, again that is not what I am saying.

Quoting Stormcrow: "Take care in what you believe and why. It will affect your eternity."

POST #168:
Stormcrow: "Virtually EVERYONE acknowledges that "Jesus was man 'in flesh'": even the Koran teaches this! What's so difficult to believe or understand that "Jesus was 'man in flesh'"?!?

"Let me break this to you gently: if you believe that Jesus Christ was just a man on whom God merely poured His Spirit, then you share more in common - theologically speaking - with Islam, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, than you do with the body of Christ."

POST #171:
Quoting Stormcrow: "Because He is NOT "flesh only." [I have never said that he was but have repeated said, Jesus is God.]

POST #181:
[after my repeatedly imploring the antagonist here to abide by the T.O.S. and not launch personal attacks] -->

Quoting Stormclaw: "John didn't have to explain what he meant to the churches he planted. He doesn't have to explain what he meant to most people who accept that Jesus Christ IS God incarnate.

The greater question is, why should he or anyone else have to explain it to you?"

_____________________

The bible clearly defines the issue here and rather than try to support his premise that John alleged that belief in the divinity of Jesus was required to tell the difference between antichrist spirits and the Spirit of God -- he has chosen to ignore this entirely and merely attack me. That is the definition of personal attacks. I resent his statements that I am not Christian, that I share more in common with Islam, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses than I do the body of Christ.

It has been my intent to only agree with the Apostle John who taught us how to use proper discernment and how to test the spirits. To me, it's simple: Did Jesus come from God? Did he come in the flesh?

To my antagonist, I am held suspect. I have repeatedly asked him to stop off the personal attack and just address the issue at hand.

My question to you, Reba: Am I not making myself clear?

 

[reba]

Two intelligent brothers and i dont see your differences.

It is way over my head.

You both believe in the Trinity?


Sometimes its nice to be a simple minded female.... :angel3

 

[reba]

Why did/does John say:

1Jn 4:3 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.


My simple answer Folks were teaching that who we know as Jesus, God incarnate, was just a man. The life of Jesus was then old news.....

 

[Stormcrow]

The bible clearly defines the issue here and rather than try to support his premise that John alleged that belief in the divinity of Jesus was required to tell the difference between antichrist spirits and the Spirit of God -- he has chosen to ignore this entirely and merely attack me.

I have addressed the issue repeatedly and have not attacked you but what I perceived to be the weakness of your point of view.

I resent his statements that I am not Christian, that I share more in common with Islam, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses than I do the body of Christ.

I never wrote that you were not a Christian and used a conditional (if/then) statement when I wrote this:

if you believe that Jesus Christ was just a man on whom God merely poured His Spirit, then you share more in common - theologically speaking - with Islam, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, than you do with the body of Christ.

Go back and read it again: http://www.christianforums.net/f20/who-antichrist-34964/index12.html#post533028

It has been my intent to only agree with the Apostle John who taught us how to use proper discernment and how to test the spirits. To me, it's simple: Did Jesus come from God? Did he come in the flesh?

But - as Reba correctly asserts - the heresy John was addressing was that some were saying Jesus was not God "in the flesh" (God incarnate).

You're reading the words, I'm trying to get you to see their meaning.

To my antagonist, I am held suspect. I have repeatedly asked him to stop off the personal attack and just address the issue at hand.

I have addressed the issue repeatedly. You ignore most of the questions I asked.

I haven't attacked you personally. I have asked probing questions to find out where you stand on the issue, while - at the same time - defending my own position.

That's called "give and take." Thanks.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, if "Jesus came in the flesh," means "Jesus is God," I would have to agree.

If, "Jesus came in the flesh and God poured His Spirit out upon Him without measure," means: "Christ is nothing more than a man," again - I agree.

I asked, and am still waiting for reply, "Show me where John's statements allege that all must believe as we do -- that Jesus is fully God."
to this comes your reply:

Why would you take issue with my assessment of John's view of the antichrist if you didn't have a different point of view?

I sidestepped nothing. I also addressed the reason for this in several posts. And I wrote this:

John didn't have to explain what he meant to the churches he planted. He doesn't have to explain what he meant to most people who accept that Jesus Christ IS God incarnate.

The greater question is, why should he or anyone else have to explain it to you?

John's statements are simple.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 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.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

According to the testimony of God you are correct to say that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He clearly states this as THE test that we are to use: That Jesus came from the Father and that He came in flesh. Jesus is Messiah, the Annointed, the Christ. He was born of the virgin as prophesied, came in flesh, died and was raised.

Where have I have I said that Jesus was not sent by God? Either show my words (without changing them) so that I can reply or stop accusing me of saying something that I never said. There is no argument as far as I can tell except your insistance that John meant more than what he wrote in his 1st epistle. What is the test? It is as he said, "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," if there is any problem with that, it is not with me.

 

[Stormcrow]

arent you catholic? i have never heard much on what the rcc says on the ac.

Was born and baptized into Roman Catholicism, but do not consider myself Roman Catholic now (reasons for which stated on another thread.)

Here is the historical position of the RCC as commissioned by the Council of Trent:

Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain. He began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3½ literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:


Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.


Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.


Abolish the Christian religion.


Deny Jesus Christ.


Be received by the Jews.


Pretend to be God.


Kill the two witnesses of God.


Conquer the world.


So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3½ times of prophecy were not 1260 years as based on the year-day principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6), but a literal 3½ years. Therefore, none of the book of Revelation had any application to the Middle Ages or the papacy, but to the future; to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. If this interpretation is correct, the reading and exposition of Revelation is unnecessary; a position that is in direct opposition to the reason it was written (Rev. 1:1-3).


The Futuristic system of interpretation was instigated by the Council of Trent (1545–1563) as a response to the Protestant reformation. Jesuit priests, Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellarmine, over several decades, developed the proposition that everything in Revelation from chapters 4-22 was to come to pass sometime in the future, thereby removing all incriminating interpretations against the Papacy. The Historicist method of interpretation had been building for 1500 years with input, argument, and discussion from hundreds of scholars, scientists, and theologians (most of which were Catholic).



However, the Counter-Reformation solution proposed by Ribera and Bellarmine was in direct conflict with Peter's clear statement, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20, according to Froom (1948, Vols. 2, 3)


The first Protestant to accept and espouse Futurism was Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792–1866) curate of Christ Church, Gloucester, who wrote a 72 page pamphlet in 1826 denouncing the year-day principle. Even though many defended the traditional historical positions, Futurism became more and more popular with Protestants, especially after the printing of the Scofield Reference Bible about 1900. (Froom, 1948, Vols. 3, 4)


​

For their currently held views on this, follow the link:


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antichrist


Peace. Out.

 

[Sam21]

Sam for me its not (if you dont like the word) it is all the junk theology that has been built around THAT word. It is used to incite, to sell, to make the messenger important. When i hear/read something that says The Revelation says antichrist this or that i doubt the rest of the messengers statement. The guy who God used to pen The Revelation ,John, did not use the term God has his reasons for not using it so why does man add it to Revelation....

Rev has more to say about the last days evil ruler than any book and in Rev he is called the Beast. In the book of John,John was only affirming that the church knew that an individual would come in the last days who would oppose Christ,so John called him antichrist, that is not his name it is what he is, the beast in Rev IS anti-Christ because he makes everyone worship himself, the son of perdition in Thess is anti-Christ because he makes everyone worship himself, therefore most believers just use the word antichrist to describe this fellow. His name is not antichrist...he is the ultimate antichrist.

 

[Sam21]

yup storm..

Doing the Bible search on the words "shortly" and "at hand". One will find the usage to be just as it we think of those words today...

"Honey your dinner is ready." "OK I'll be in shortly."

"At hand" we dont use so much today but the meaning is simple...

The most difficult thing to understand about the bible has got to be the sense that Christ should have came back and took care of everything by the year 100 at the latest. The fact is that Jesus has not returned and none of the things past chapter 4 in Rev have occurred. If I did not know God for sure I would doubt that it is true even though it appears to be true by the way it is written.

 

[Stormcrow]

There is no argument as far as I can tell except your insistance that John meant more than what he wrote in his 1st epistle.

I've made my position clear.

http://www.christianforums.net/f20/who-antichrist-34964/index13.html#post533126

I'm not going to argue it with you any further.