Who is the antichrist?

[Sparkey]

I've made my position clear.

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

Well thank you for that. I still don't know why you would want to argue against what John said in the first place but I appreciate your promise to me on this at least. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

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.

fascinating that is my position on alot. the only part i would disagree with is being the pope part and also where the church is during the trib.i believe in the rapture in the middle of the tribulation.thanks.

 

[Stormcrow]

I still don't know why you would want to argue against what John said in the first place

You asked me a question. I answered it according to the rule you set forth. You disagreed with that answer, hence the genesis of the argument.

Was the point of your latest post to shed more light or create more heat?

 

[Sparkey]

You asked me a question. I answered it according to the rule you set forth. You disagreed with that answer, hence the genesis of the argument.

Was the point of your latest post to shed more light or create more heat?

I was getting very tired of the whole discussion with you and resented your implications. So when you said, "I won't argue with you any more," I just sighed a sigh of relief.

Again, thanks for that. At least you're keeping your word, as I would expect. Now, can the discussion turn from me back to topic, please?

 

[Stormcrow]

Now, can the discussion turn from me back to topic, please?

It was never about you. Don't flatter yourself.

 

[reba]

the OP

Re: Who is the antichrist?

I guess the word antichrist says it all: anti-christ. wether it then is to being a "non-believer is no truth....

i sometimes have trouble picking a side.. it's like as i learned in school.

one group gets to argument; 'yes'
another gets to argument; 'no'

i have no more to say and uh i hope i wont be paranoid.

totopic

This is the last time i will ask nicely. I really hate to delete posts

 

[Vic C.]

A few years ago, I ran across the teachings of Francisco Ribera and what I discovered was enough for me to completely shy away from a literal, futuristic view of End Times.

 

[Sparkey]

So then in summary of the recent discussion, the Apostle John declared that there is a simple test that can be used to test the spirits and determine if it is from God or if it is an anti-christ spirit. Some have come and said, no! That can not be. How can we be admonished to test based on such a thing. Surely all admit that Jesus came in the flesh. The Apostle must have meant to say that we should make our determination based on if they say Jesus was God or not.

Your thoughts, please? What does 1 John chapter 4 say?

 

[Sparkey]

A few years ago, I ran across the teachings of Francisco Ribera and what I discovered was enough for me to completely shy away from a literal, futuristic view of End Times.

I found a link from Google about Ribera. Do you have a good reference?
I understood the main thesis to be: "Ribera simply read 2 Thess 2:3-4 and took the words "temple of God" to mean a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem instead of the view of the reformers that the "temple of God" was referring to the Church, because, of course, the body is the temple. (1 Corinthians 6:19, John 2:21)"

 

[Vic C.]

I found a link from Google about Ribera. Do you have a good reference?
I understood the main thesis to be: "Ribera simply read 2 Thess 2:3-4 and took the words "temple of God" to mean a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem instead of the view of the reformers that the "temple of God" was referring to the Church, because, of course, the body is the temple. (1 Corinthians 6:19, John 2:21)"

That's a good start. The info Storm presented on the Council of Trent would make a good start also.

I'd have to look at home through my links and resources to see if I still have those resources. :yes

 

[Pizzaguy]

The Anti Christ is satan, His evil spirit working through false doctrines.

And he has taken the form of Barry Obama.

 

[Sinthesis]

And he has taken the form of Barry Obama.

I'm looking at your post, and there's a banner ad for "President Trump" within it.:rolling
Clearly the Antichrist will have satanic hair!

 

[Scandinavian27]

I know that there are some people who firmly believe that Tony Blair could be the anti-christ. It declares in scripture that he will bring peace to Israel and Palestine for a short while and this is exactly what Blair is attempting to do within the UN. I've also heard speeches of him saying how much it would benefit the world if we were all united under one universal religion. :bigfrown

 

[Sinthesis]

I'm looking at your post, and there's a banner ad for "President Trump" within it.:rolling
Clearly the Antichrist will have satanic hair!

Oops! Now the banner ad has changed.
Obviously it's a sign that it's too early for the lawless one yet to be revealed.

 

[Sinthesis]

Oops! Now the banner ad has changed.
Obviously it's a sign that it's too early for the lawless one yet to be revealed.

God help us all! It's started!

 

[Pizzaguy]

I know that there are some people who firmly believe that Tony Blair could be the anti-christ. It declares in scripture that he will bring peace to Israel and Palestine for a short while and this is exactly what Blair is attempting to do within the UN. I've also heard speeches of him saying how much it would benefit the world if we were all united under one universal religion. :bigfrown

Let's see him succeed before we pronounce him evil! ;)

 

[Sparkey]

In one of my Sociology classes we were told to form groups and then make decisions (on our otherwise deserted island) about how we would deal with issues such as food, shelter, family and government.

One guy suggested "Cooperative Democracy" where everybody would have an equal say and just let the group choose the rules. He later said that this form of government could also be called "Anarchy". This gives rise to the discussion of the concept behind "lawlessness" (to me).

If everybody does what is right in their own sight and does not consider God - would that not be a form of lawlessness? I'm trying to get a handle on the spin. Of course, nobody is gonna campaign on lawlessness per se, right?

Ideas?

 

[Pizzaguy]

One guy suggested "Cooperative Democracy" where everybody would have an equal say and just let the group choose the rules.

If everybody does what is right in their own sight and does not consider God - would that not be a form of lawlessness?

Sounds like it to me. And it's where America is headed.

 

[taromina2003]

Revelation 9:11 "Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon-the Destroyer".

 

[Alabaster]

Revelation 9:11 "Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon-the Destroyer".

Yes, and the name Abaddon is one of the Secret Words of the 17th Degree of the Scottish Rite of the Freemasons.

Interesting.


Masonic Grand Lodges point to Lucifer - Is Lucifer the god, of Masons?