What is an antichrist?

a reply to: ArnoldNonymous
I still think we should hold closely to the root meaning of the word and the intended meaning of the person who first used it. Otherweise we're just deveolping our own fancies.
So that explanation would not work unless consumerism were either claimng to be Christ or "denying that Christ came in the flesh".

a reply to: DISRAELI

So that explanation would not work unless consumerism were either claimng to be Christ

Don't you think placing the motto "In God We Trust" on our money, here in the USA, kinda insinuates that capitalism and "Mammon" are our "LORD" and could be considered a sort of "Anti-Christ"?

a reply to: windword
No, that doesn't follow at all.
If someone printed "I trust in God" on a T-shirt, would that mean the T-shirt is his God?
If he got an architect to carve "I trust in God" over the lintels of a door, would he be identifying the building as his God?
For that matter, I'm sure versions of that statement can be found on many tombstones, but nobody is suggesting that the tombstone is being called a God.
Printing it on the money is no different, and was certainly never intended to be different. It was just another location where the statement could be made.


In any case, it still wouldn't match John's definition.
If you could find a statement on a dollar bill denying that Christ was come in the flesh, or claiming "This paper bill is the returned Christ", then you might be on to something.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If someone printed "I trust in God" on a T-shirt, would that mean the T-shirt is his God?

I don't see it that way at all. The T shirt is a sort of "Free Speech". The motto on our currency is not. It can easily be seen to be declaring the US dollar a form of worship, in replacement of that what "Christ" offers. Money and wealth equals success which is the reward for correct living.

a reply to: windword
I doubt if the sentence on the notes was meant to be anything other than "free speech".
As for people's attitudes towards money, they would be exactly the same if the statement was not there. As demonstrated in the many countries which don't have anything like it on their own currency.

And in any case, being "a sort of god" is not the same thing as being an antichrist, which has a much narrower definition, as put forward by the man who probably invented the term in the first place.

a reply to: Seede
I don't know what John would think of your Enoch-based speculations about the spirits, but I'm sure he would agree that the "many antichrists" are something different.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I doubt if the sentence on the notes was meant to be anything other than "free speech".

Whose free speech? The government's free speech?

And in any case, being "a sort of god" is not the same thing as being an antichrist, which has a much narrower definition, as put forward by the man who probably invented the term in the first place.

I think you've made it pretty clear that anyONE who doesn't abide by the biblical concept of Jesus IS "Christ" and your view of his historicity, is Anti-Christ.

What's being introduce into the conversation, by ArnoldNonymous, is the "anyTHING" that could also be considered "anti-Christ". Corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and the blind obedience to social constructs such as wealth and titles, could all fit into that category of anti-Christ.

originally posted by: windword
I think you've made it pretty clear that anyONE who doesn't abide by the biblical concept of Jesus IS "Christ" and your view of his historicity, is Anti-Christ.

All I'm doing is laying out the definition put forward by the man who invented the word in the first place. I'm content to be guided by that.

The "false christs" mentioned in Matthew ch24 are obviously people.
The "many antichrists" mentioned in John's letter are obviously people.
This is a New Testament concept, and that is the New Testament understanding of what it means.
Ingeniously re-defining the word in terms of things detaches it from the original concept. It's an attempt to silence the original concept, by making it inexpressible.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Just as "Christ" is not just a flesh and blood existence, its is a spiritual concept, so is the "antichrist".

1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Most scholars agree that John's usage of the word [Antichrist] implies two different meanings: 1) against the Christ, and 2) instead of the Christ. Both meanings fit the final fuhrer. The antichrist will be against the Christ; that is, he will be an enemy of the Christ, and he will try to replace the Christ; that is, he will be a false Christ.

Since "The Church" is the "Body of Christ" then too, The Antichrist will be symbolic authoritative body.The Beast is the "Antichrist" by definition? The Beast takes the place of "The Christ"

Daniel 7:23
"Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces.'"

Revelation 13:3-8
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.
So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Isn't this Beast THE Anti-Christ"? Was Hitler no Antichrist, an Anti-Christ, THE Anti-Christ or did he act in the spirit of the Anti-Christ, perhaps the Third Reich arising as one of his heads? Perhaps the militarized corporatism/capitalism that plagues the world today, raping the earth and leaving misery everywhere it goes, is a "head" of The Beast?

So the “antichrist” which John’s readers had been taught to expect would be a counterpart and rival of the Christ in whom they believed.
He would perhaps be presenting himself as the returned Christ or as a new version of Christ.
And he would have been promoting teaching which undermined the work of Christ, which would certainly include the undermining of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

There's been a lot of threads lately questioning the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. I get that your message in this thread is that the antichrist is none other that your flesh and blood neighbor, boss or loved one or random ATS member that denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I think your being petty, creating division and missing the big picture of what is "Christ" and what is not "Christ" in concept.

None of us skeptics and non-believers deserve to be placed in the category of "The Beast/Antichrist", and I personally find it divisive and offensive for you to do so.

originally posted by: windword
"1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

In one of the paragraphs of the OP, I pointed out that the word "spirit" is not contained in the Greek which lies behind that translation.
The literal Greek is "This is the of antichrist"- TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTICHRISTOU. John actually talks of many spirits guiding the "false prophets", not one.

Since "The Church" is the "Body of Christ" then too, The Antichrist will be symbolic authoritative body.The Beast is the "Antichrist" by definition? The Beast takes the place of "The Christ"

if you want to use the "Body of Christ" as a model, you should remember that the "Body of Christ" has an individual at the "head" of it. And so by analogy...

Perhaps the militarized corporatism/capitalism that plagues the world today, raping the earth and leaving misery everywhere it goes, is a "head" of The Beast?

But I am talking about "antichrist", which is a more limited concept.
If there is someone in the situation claiming to be Christ or Jesus returned, then we have a "false christ" in the terms of the Matthew ch24 description.
If people are claiming that Christ is "not come in the flesh", then the "many antichrists" of John's definition are active.

There's been a lot of threads lately questioning the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. I get that your message in this thread is that the antichrist is none other that your flesh and blood neighbor, boss or loved one or random ATS member that denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I think your being petty, creating division and missing the big picture of what is "Christ" and what is not "Christ" in concept.

None of us skeptics and non-believers deserve to be placed in the category of "The Beast/Antichrist", and I personally find it divisive and offensive for you to do so.

All I'm doing, as I've said before, is laying out the New Testament teaching and definition as put before us by John.
If you find John's definition offensive, you must take that up with John.
I point the finger at no individuals.

Incidentally, the "Incarnation" theme of my last three threads (the others being "Word became flesh" and "Jesus is a man") was planned out before Christmas, getting written onto my calendar at the time, and had nothing to do with any other recent threads.
In fact I intend to be focussing on John's gospel for the next couple of months.
That is my Easter and post-Easter theme for this year.

a reply to: windword

There's been a lot of threads lately questioning the existence of an historical Jesus Christ. I get that your message in this thread is that the antichrist is none other that your flesh and blood neighbor, boss or loved one or random ATS member that denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I think your being petty, creating division and missing the big picture of what is "Christ" and what is not "Christ" in concept. None of us skeptics and non-believers deserve to be placed in the category of "The Beast/Antichrist", and I personally find it divisive and offensive for you to do so.

Then I understand that you have some question of a historical Jesus (whatever that means.)

If a person does not accept a historical Jesus, as in the NT bible, does that mean that this person is against Jesus as being the Christ? Would you say that person would be a anti Jesus Christ?

Some people believe there is no Christ in their religion and deny any Christ will or has ever existed. If a person does not accept that Jesus even exists then what is so offensive as calling that person an anti-Christ? That person certainly is not pro Jesus and has shown that he or she is against the Jesus concept as being the Christ.

Doesn't John say the very same thing?

2John_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

A believer regards anyone who is not for Jesus as being a deceiver or some one who misleads another. To a believer of Christ Jesus that is an Anti-Christ. It seems to me that you are taking offense and want political correctness to smooth your sensitivity. If a person cannot accept Jesus as the anointed from God then so be it. Then he or she is anti Jesus and therefore anti His being the Christ.

I take the term literally

anti-Christ

to be against Christ

or against Christians in general (as an overriding philosophy)
(while claiming to like individual Christians, just not most Christians)

Christophobic (so against Christ one is afraid of Him or of His followers)

I'm not sure that it will be any one person in the future. I think it will be multiple people who so fear Christians and Christ that they seek to put an end to the religion.

In that sense, there are many "anti-Christs" on ATS.

There will emerge a leader of the cult of Christ and Christian haters, and that person will be the one that will be identified by Christians as THE great anti-Christ.

But overall, I think it means anyone in general who is Christophobic or intensely dislikes the religion of Christianity and intensely dislikes the New Testament and it's precepts.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Yes, John does seem to use the word in a double sense.
"You have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come" (1 John ch2 v18).
That implies both an individual "coming" antichrist (though John does not actually say "THE"), and also, as you suggest, many allies, agents, forerunners, however we want to describe them.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If you find John's definition offensive, you must take that up with John.
I point the finger at no individuals.

It's offensive because you have taken this out of the historical context, which was a kind of feud that was brewing between the Paulinites, the Edomites, the Gnostic and whoever James followers were etc, who were also offended, no doubt, by being called "enemies of Christ".

It's offensive because this very scripture and line of logic is the same logic that the Roman Catholic Church used to exterminate all those "antichrists" and all those who came after, like the Cathars for example.

The Beast and the Antichrist are inseparable. One arises from the other, just as "Christ" (The Word) arises from God. The claim of Jesus being the "Lamb of God" places Jesus right there in Daniel's scenario/prophecy; i.e. end of the world, and also the same end of the world scenario from Revelation, placing Jesus as the "Lamb" just like in Daniel and the Beast as The Antichrist. You can't have it both ways.

The antichrist isn't your neighbor, your co-worker, your loved one or some random outspoken non-believer.

a reply to: Seede

If a person does not accept a historical Jesus, as in the NT bible, does that mean that this person is against Jesus as being the Christ? Would you say that person would be a anti Jesus Christ?

Not believing John, who claims that Jesus of Nazareth was "The Christ", The Word", "The LOGOS"....is not being against the concept of "Christ" "The Word", "The LOGOs. And those who question John certainly don't fulfill the prophecy/scenario of "The Beast".

a reply to: grandmakdw

But overall, I think it means anyone in general who is Christophobic or intensely dislikes the religion of Christianity and intensely dislikes the New Testament and it's precepts.

John's Christianity was very different than the Christianity that's being celebrated today.

originally posted by: windword
It's offensive because you have taken this out of the historical context,

It is still a New Testament principle, even if there was an historical occasion for expressing it.
Just as Paul's comments to the Galatians about the centrality of faith are still New Testament principles even away from their original occasion.

The Beast and the Antichrist are inseparable.

I need to remind you that there are two Beasts in Revelation ch13. There is the Beast from the sea, and the Beast from the land.
The Beast from the sea is a corporate body, the Beast from the land is an individual.
So there is room both for your "corporate body" interpretations of the Beast and for an individual antichrist, "opening his mouth against God".
You yourself touched on the possibility of a Third Reich analogy, and I've used it myself in my Revelation series; the Reich itself as like the Beast from the sea, the leader/orator Hitler as like the Beast from the land.

But as for the label antichrist, we must be guided by the man who invented the word. He knew what he meant. And since his understanding of it is incorporated into the New Testament, that is the New Testament understanding.

The antichrist isn't your neighbor, your co-worker, your loved one or some random outspoken non-believer.

I repeat. I point the finger at no individuals. I just present the definition which the New Testament provides, relating to many antichrists.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But as for the label antichrist, we must be guided by the man who invented the word. He knew what he meant. And since his understanding of it is incorporated into the New Testament, that is the New Testament understanding.

John didn't invent the word antichrist any more than he invented the word christ or anti. Isaiah gives us our first concept if the Messiah/ Christ and Daniel gives us our first concept of "Antichrist", not John. John just piggybacks on already established themes, including "The LOGOS.

a reply to: windword
John is certainly the first known user of the word "antichrist" (though, admittedly, that isn't absolute proof that he coined it himself).
You cannot claim that Daniel uses the word, or anything like it.
What we find in Daniel is the first image of "the Beast from the sea".
I have already pointed out the difference between the corporate "Beast from the sea" and the individual "Beast from the land", leaving open the possibility that the Beast from the land is an individual antichrist, or even what John meant by the "coming" antichrist.
But this discussion is mainly about the "many antichrists" as defined in John's warning, not about that final example of the species.

a reply to: DISRAELI

What John did was, by taking ancient well known themes and by claiming that Jesus was not only the foretold Christ/Messiah, but The LOGOS, he promoting the agenda of his cult. Believing that he was living in end times, he imagined the antichrist in everyone and urgently demonized his fellows, who didn't see eye to eye with him. The suite that followed was nothing less than pure evil.