It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saved by grace thru faith alone: What is a work?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, that's why I said they were "titles" the Bible uses for the antichrist, nobody knows his proper name yet.
They are titles of things understood metaphorically.
They are not titles of a man.



Umm, no. The antichrist is the 2nd most talked about person in the Bible after Jesus.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The antichrist is the 2nd most talked about person in the Bible
The antichrist as a person is someone never talked about in the Bible.
All you are doing is creating a bugaboo for your own amusement and claiming that you have the power to foretell the future because there is always a bad person who people can point to as being the antichrist.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




The antichrist as a person is someone never talked about in the Bible.


I think you are confusing "spirit of antichrist" with "the antichrist" (definite article specific). In the Greek the definite article "hu" (the) means something that is unique, specific, and different from any other. "hu antichristos". So the Bible both speaks of the spirit of antichrist, which has always been present, and it speaks of "the antichrist" which is a specific person to come.

You're trying to force the Bible into your belief structure, (amillennialism), instead of letting the Bible dictate your belief structure. There is a reason nearly everyone in the amillennialist camp jumped the bandwagon during or just after WWII.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: jmdewey60




The antichrist as a person is someone never talked about in the Bible.


I think you are confusing "spirit of antichrist" with "the antichrist" (definite article specific). In the Greek the definite article "hu" (the) means something that is unique, specific, and different from any other. "hu antichristos". So the Bible both speaks of the spirit of antichrist, which has always been present, and it speaks of "the antichrist" which is a specific person to come.

You're trying to force the Bible into your belief structure, (amillennialism), instead of letting the Bible dictate your belief structure. There is a reason nearly everyone in the amillennialist camp jumped the bandwagon during or just after WWII.



1John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3 and 2John 1:7 are the only places in all of scriptures that use the word antichrist which means in place of the anointing.It does not use the definitive article the.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

it speaks of "the antichrist" which is a specific person to come.
It doesn't, as I said earlier. You invented "the antichrist" and then went around the Bible picking out plausible references to your imaginary character.

You're trying to force the Bible into your belief structure, (amillennialism), instead of letting the Bible dictate your belief structure. There is a reason nearly everyone in the amillennialist camp jumped the bandwagon during or just after WWII.
This is your fictional version of the history of eschatology.
The version of eschatology that you support was an anomaly of the Nineteenth Century.
edit on 29-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

You need to re-check the Greek interlinear for 2 John 1:7

pdf



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




It doesn't...


Check again..

2 John Greek Interlinear



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypicalBad link.
So this thing that you think is so important, you can't even write one sentence in its defense?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypicalBad link.
So this thing that you think is so important, you can't even write one sentence in its defense?



The text speaks for itself.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The text speaks for itself.
It says nothing about a particular person, the antichrist.
There is no place in the Bible that says such a thing.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The text speaks for itself.
It says nothing about a particular person, the antichrist.
There is no place in the Bible that says such a thing.



It says what I said earlier, the definite article "the" precedes the word antichrist. And you know Greek, so you know the significance of the definite article "the" before a noun.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

It says what I said earlier, the definite article "the" precedes the word antichrist. And you know Greek, so you know the significance of the definite article "the" before a noun.
That is ignoring the context, that anyone can be a potential Antichrist, and it could be any number of people or whole groups of people.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




that anyone can be a potential Antichrist


Then in Greek the writer CANNOT use the definite article to describe the antichrist, that means a specific one, unique from any and all others.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then in Greek the writer CANNOT use the definite article to describe the antichrist, . . .
How does this make any sense?
Are you saying that what you claim can't be?
If that is what you mean, then I would agree, it cannot be talking about a single individual.

If you mean that the article disallows the straightforward meaning of the context, then I would say that is ridiculous on the face of it and you would have to supply more information on articles and make an actual argument that whatever rule you think is there applies in this case.


edit on 30-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

No, if the writer was speaking in generalities and not about a specific coming antichrist then he could not use the definite article "the" to describe antichrist. The definite article means the writer was speaking of a specific person, one unique from any and all others.





THE DEFINITE ARTICLE USED WITH NOUNS:

1. The ARTICULAR NOUN: When the definite article "the", IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES a NOUN, and it agrees with the NOUN in case number and gender, the NOUN is called an "ARTICULAR NOUN". The presence of the article marks CONTRAST, makes the noun stand out, and adds emphasis. The ARTICULAR NOUN also IDENTIFIES, or reveals identity. For example:

a. Titles in scripture are normally ARTICULAR NOUNS. Ho Theos (the God) and Ho Christos (the Jesus) are identifying God and Jesus as the one God of the Bible, (there are many God's), and Jesus the Son of God, the Savior. (Jesus was a common name among the Jews and many men were named Jesus).

b. In Romans chapter 6, Paul repeatedly places the definite article before the word "sin" (hamartia) indicating that he is not talking in this chapter about "a sin", some "amount" of sin, or "sinning" in general, but, THE SIN NATURE! He is contrasting our new nature and our old nature and urging us to live in the new nature!

2. The ANARTHROUS NOUN: When a noun is NOT immediately preceded by the definite article, the noun is called an "ANARTHROUS NOUN". The ABSENCE of the article is just as important as the presence of the article, and its ABSENCE emphasizes the QUALITY or CHARACTER of the person or thing designated in the context.


Source


edit on 30-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No, if the writer was speaking in generalities and not about a specific coming antichrist then he could not use the definite article "the" to describe antichrist. The definite article means the writer was speaking of a specific person, one unique from any and all others.
"Definite" is a defining word that distributes things, such as, "this thing, and that thing".
What you are doing is just making up a fictional article and then making up fictional rules for it.

John is saying, "this is it, what defines them as antichrist".
All the rest that you are saying, that it means a special, unique individual is pure fantasy.
edit on 30-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

Wrong sir.



ho, hé, to:
the Original Word: ὁ, ἡ, τό
Part of Speech: Definite Article
Transliteration: ho, hé, to
Phonetic Spelling: (ho)
Short Definition: the
Definition: the, the definite article.


Strong's G3588



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Wrong sir.
I just said that it was the definite article.
That being said, then what?
I described what that actually means vs what you imaginatively hypothesized that it meant.
Can you find and post here anything in writing to support your earlier claim about definite articles?
Your link for SOURCE, if it was working, takes you to a dispensationalist web site that teaches some of the intricacies of that cult doctrine that promotes the same sort of antichrist fictional accounts as the ones you present.
edit on 30-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join