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.
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypicalThey are titles of things understood metaphorically.
Yeah, that's why I said they were "titles" the Bible uses for the antichrist, nobody knows his proper name yet.
They are not titles of a man.
The antichrist as a person is someone never talked about in the Bible.
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.
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.
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.
it speaks of "the antichrist" which is a specific person to come.
This is your fictional version of the history of eschatology.
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.
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?
It says nothing about a particular person, the antichrist.
The text speaks for itself.
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypicalIt says nothing about a particular person, the antichrist.
The text speaks for itself.
There is no place in the Bible that says such a thing.
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.
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.
How does this make any sense?
Then in Greek the writer CANNOT use the definite article to describe the antichrist, . . .
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.
"Definite" is a defining word that distributes things, such as, "this thing, and that thing".
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.
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.
I just said that it was the definite article.
Wrong sir.