Who is the antichrist?

[Who Says]

where do the Scriptures say there is 'the antichrist'?

Do you mean "the" as in a singular antichrist?

Because that is just how we summerize them as a particular "kind".

But that is an excellent observation for it proves the antichrist is not one individual (only).

 

[reba]

Do you mean "the" as in a singular antichrist?

Because that is just how we summerize them as a particular "kind".

In other words there is no Scripture account of a singular one guy antichrist

 

[Sinthesis]

where do the Scriptures say there is 'the antichrist'?

It could be inferred he would be found in the desert or secret chambers. However, these terms are metaphorical.

Unless you are thinking Las Vegas... but the apocalypse that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... at least that is the great lie the credit card companies want you to believe.

 

[farouk]

First John speaks of 1) Antichrist; 2) many antichrists.

 

[Who Says]

In other words there is no Scripture account of a singular one guy antichrist

Yes, I agree.

That does not however prevent singular individuals as being antichrists for we are given examples of them in scripture.

1 Timothy 1:18 ¶This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.


These deny Christ by their works even if they do not do so by saying so verbally.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

2 Timothy 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

 

[reba]

The little books of John give a clear definition of what an antichrist is. That has been posted here a number of times..

In the 4/5 times the Scripture (KJV) uses the term antichrist not one is speaking of a 'ruler' big guy THEE.

How much theology have we humans added to Scripture?

 

[Who Says]

The little books of John give a clear definition of what an antichrist is. That has been posted here a number of times..

In the 4/5 times the Scripture (KJV) uses the term antichrist not one is speaking of a 'ruler' big guy THEE.

How much theology have we humans added to Scripture?

Three times Amen.

Way too much without even realizing it. :yes

From where does that tendency to go beyond come?

Which is the greater danger of it:

(1) Seeing things as simply as possible trusting that God did not make it complicated for his children?

(2) Seeing it as a complex mystery that we must be very special to see?

(3) Pushing what we think is right as though politicing?

 

[sdktlk]

The little books of John give a clear definition of what an antichrist is. That has been posted here a number of times..

In the 4/5 times the Scripture (KJV) uses the term antichrist not one is speaking of a 'ruler' big guy THEE.

How much theology have we humans added to Scripture?

I believe "they," they being those who teach this one man anti-christ theology would say that the "one man anti-christ" and the "man of sin" are one in the same. (2Thes 2:3) Not that I hold to that, I'm just saying what I believe is the way it is taught.

The real problem lies in that the deception is so huge and has gone on for so long it is practically impossible in few words to combat it.

 

[Who Says]

I believe "they," they being those who teach this one man anti-christ theology would say that the "one man anti-christ" and the "man of sin" are one in the same. (2Thes 2:3) Not that I hold to that, I'm just saying what I believe is the way it is taught.

The real problem lies in that the deception is so huge and has gone on for so long it is practically impossible in few words to combat it.

Amen.

The only change I would make is that those who see a singular indivdual antichrist as that man of sin are the ones from where a huge portion (but only a portion) of the problem comes.

That man of sin is not one man, he is the body Satan has formed of many men using Adam's fallen flesh as tares to resist the true Christ. And that qualifies them as antichrists but only if "they have gone out from among us" as John said.

In other words they kbnew and then turned away to allow their tare side to take them over until they became a matured tare in its completeness.

Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

 

[Vic C.]

I've pointed this out many times and have no problem with pointing it out again:

Scripture mentions "antichrist" just four times. We all should know the verses by now.

Now, if any passage of scripture is used to present a case for who this "antichrist" is and when he apears(ed), it better measure up to the very concise definitions John gave us in his epistles.

If it doesn't, then it's just Man attempting to interject meaning into passages that just isn't there.

But as I type this, I see Reba has said much of the same thing. :yes

Good job Reba.

 

[Who Says]

I've pointed this out many times and have no problem with pointing it out again:

Scripture mentions "antichrist" just four times. We all should know the verses by now.

Now, if any passage of scripture is used to present a case for who this "antichrist" is and when he apears(ed), it better measure up to the very concise definitions John gave us in his epistles.

If it doesn't, then it's just Man attempting to interject meaning into passages that just isn't there.

But as I type this, I see Reba has said much of the same thing. :yes

Good job Reba.

Amen. I agree.

 

[Who Says]

Vic's post has moved me to want to try to summarize what I see.

I believe that if i would see the Catholic, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, or whatever group as the problem, then it is me that has the problem.

For I believe that the tares are the problem both in us competing for the soil of our own hearts and next to us competing the hearts of our brothers and that this is irregardless of what group we belong to.

I believe that in all groups there are those of us who are becoming more Christ-like and those of us who are becoming more tare-like. And to become more tare-like is subtly to be putting on Satan without our realizing it.

I believe that this competition has been going on for a long time now, having actually been begun from the very beginning days of the church and that 2 Thess 2 is just the more matured field wherein the tares are more matured as well as the wheat.

I believe we see in Revelation chaps 2 and 3 that the groups of churches are in a race to conquer the tares that infest them and that these tares are being refined out of the meek in Christ but not successfully refined out of the insincere among us who only imagine they are putting on Christ.

And here is the critical factor: Hebrews 12:6 "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

Bearing that in mind there are some of us as individuals who manifest that we are without discipline. That may be that we completely let discipline go unnoticed or it may be that we rebel against it when it comes to us. And when that condition is chronic that renders us individually not a child of God.

I also believe that the same principle applies to our churches and that if the evidence is that God has ceased to discipline our church then that is evidence that God has cast off our church group and we need to get away from it.

But I believe this is a thing that we must decide as individuals and not by means of someone else condemning our religion based upon their personal opinions as outsiders and on-lookers.

It really just boils down to that we all individually need to be concerned with holiness and not let our self be deceived concerning Christ's holiness and our need to also learn to wear that holiness.

 

[Hitch]

John 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.



Antichrist is any one or anything that defines Jesus Christ as anything less than God incarnate.

"As having come in the flesh" describes the vital point confessed about "Jesus Christ," namely His deity, incarnate in the flesh or human nature, once incarnate and remaining so. This person "Jesus (personal name: Savior) Christ" (the name which is derived from His office: Anointed to be our Prophet, High Priest, and King), who as God's Son (1:3,7; 2:22,23) existed from eternity, "has come" in the fulness of time "in flesh" (Jh 1:14).

 

[Who Says]

John 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.



Antichrist is any one or anything that defines Jesus Christ as anything less than God incarnate.

OK. That does = holy, in fact to that absolute max.

So that works. Now just imitate it. Image it.

 

[Sam21]

The little books of John give a clear definition of what an antichrist is. That has been posted here a number of times..

In the 4/5 times the Scripture (KJV) uses the term antichrist not one is speaking of a 'ruler' big guy THEE.

How much theology have we humans added to Scripture?

John said that WE(church) know that THE ANTICHRIST COMES. John then went on to identify THAT antichrist as someone who would come at the end of the age because he said that he believed that it was the LAST TIME because there were many opposed to Christ(then) and he called them antichrists. Note, an antichrist may deny that Jesus came in the flesh, however an antichrist may admit that Jesus came in the flesh but deny that he is the son of God(Muslims). John was not declaring that one false doctrine (Jesus did not come in the flesh) would reveal ALL antichrists, John was revealing a PARTICULAR false doctrine that would reveal an antichrist. The world is full of people who believe that Jesus came in the flesh but who are still opposed to Christ, any opposition to Christ could make the person an antichrist. As I pointed out, if one denies a coming antichrist then one is denying what Christ gave to John, Paul, Revelation...so would that denial of Christ teaching make the person an antichrist? It appears that denial of a coming antichrist would seem to make one an antichrist. Anyway, I am not calling anyone an antichrist, however for those who do not see a coming individual called the antichrist...please study the bible again please, this is believed by most of the church because it is in the bible.

 

[Hitch]

OK. That does = holy, in fact to that absolute max.

So that works. Now just imitate it. Image it.

Get off it.

 

[Hitch]

John said that WE(church) know that THE ANTICHRIST COMES. John then went on to identify THAT antichrist as someone who would come at the end of the age because he said that he believed that it was the LAST TIME because there were many opposed to Christ(then) and he called them antichrists. Note, an antichrist may deny that Jesus came in the flesh, however an antichrist may admit that Jesus came in the flesh but deny that he is the son of God(Muslims). John was not declaring that one false doctrine (Jesus did not come in the flesh) would reveal ALL antichrists, John was revealing a PARTICULAR false doctrine that would reveal an antichrist. The world is full of people who believe that Jesus came in the flesh but who are still opposed to Christ, any opposition to Christ could make the person an antichrist. As I pointed out, if one denies a coming antichrist then one is denying what Christ gave to John, Paul, Revelation...so would that denial of Christ teaching make the person an antichrist? It appears that denial of a coming antichrist would seem to make one an antichrist. Anyway, I am not calling anyone an antichrist, however for those who do not see a coming individual called the antichrist...please study the bible again please, this is believed by most of the church because it is in the bible.

Dont you think John's timing was correct?

 

[Sam21]

Dont you think John's timing was correct?

The one mystery that WE know today and the writers of the New Testament did not know...THE TIME FACTOR. God just did not reveal to any of the writers of the New Testament that 1900 years would pass...the NT is written in a way that makes it appear that the whole thing would be over within a hundred years or less...it just did not happen that way...the time element was a mystery known only to God.

 

[Hitch]

The one mystery that WE know today and the writers of the New Testament did not know...THE TIME FACTOR. God just did not reveal to any of the writers of the New Testament that 1900 years would pass...the NT is written in a way that makes it appear that the whole thing would be over within a hundred years or less...it just did not happen that way...the time element was a mystery known only to God.

So you're accusing the apostle of speaking in God's name when he did not have the authority of specific revelation .

It is much more likely you have misinterpreted.

 

[reba]

Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Verse 19 puts 18 into perspective.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us