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.

 

What is an antichrist?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
He defined a class of people that he identified as "antichrists", which is far from being "everyone".
Whatever you imagine about his motives, he is part of the New Testament which defines Christian teaching.
The concept of "antichrist" is a New Testament concept, one which he has given us, and that should guide our understanding of what it means.




posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: wasaka
Yes, both of those theories involve identifying the Beast of Revelation with the "coming" antichrist, which is plausible, but not actually stated in Revelation.

My theory is that Revelation is addessing two readerships at the same time, his own contemporaries and the later church.
If Nero was "the Beast" for his contemporaries, that need not rule out another Beast for the church of the future.

Amongst other things, one major objection to identifying the papacy with the Beast is that Protestants have also wanted to identify the papacy with the Harlot.
The Beast and the Harlot are different and separate entities, and the papacy cannot be both.


Correct. If the False Prophet came out of the Beast
AND if the Beast / Anti-Christ is the Catholic Church,
THEN, the False Prophet must be the Protestant
denomination that CAME OF THE BEAST.

Actually, that does make the most sense, in my view.





edit on 18-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka
I would analyse them in a different way.
I see the Beast from the sea as a political entity, a world-dominating state.
I see the Beast from the land, also called the "false prophet", as the leader of that state.
A good analogy would be the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler respectively.
The second figure is the one who could also be an "antichrist".
There is no reason for the Catholic church to be either of them, If anything, it would have to be identified with the Harlot, who is a specifically religious figure resting on the support of the political figures. However, I'm not committed to that identification either. I think we're still waiting for these images to be fulfilled.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




The concept of "antichrist" is a New Testament concept, one which he has given us, and that should guide our understanding of what it means.


It most certainly is not, unless you also believe that the concept of "Christ" is also only a New Testament concept. The fact is, the New Testament is a reiteration and culmination of the Old Testament and John relies strongly on Isaiah to make his claims.

John, in his zeal, merely expanded the concept of "antichrist" to defend his dogma that Jesus of Nazareth was both the Messiah of Isaiah and The LOGOs. John lumps all the (Jewish) bad guys and non-believers together to be cast into the pit along with The Beast with the antichrist, from whence they arose, according to John.


Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.


This translates for modern Christians into their non-believing family, friends and colleagues being enemies of Christ, the savior of the world, therefore, non-believers are enemies of humanity. I grow weary of this, so called, Christian message.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
It is a New Testament word, and therefore a New Testament concept.
Being a New Testament concept, it is a Christian concept.
If you don't like the Christian message, I don't really understand what you are doing trying to define Christian concepts.
Do I go into Buddhist discussions with a view to improving their understanding of Nirvana?



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Christ isn't a New Testament concept. The New Testament makes claims that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ. John makes the correlation that anyone who denies Jesus of Nazareth is "Christ" is in league with the Beast that opposes Christ the Messiah in the Old Testament, and is named as "The Antichrist" in Revelation, aligning with the Old Testament scenario in book of Daniel. The Antichrist is NOT a concept UNIQUE New Testament. It's been overlayed.

You're going with John's reasoning, advising modern Christians to consider those who don't conform to fundamental and literal Christianity antichrists. I find this to be just as foul a teaching today as it was when it was used to justify aggression against the Gnostic, the Ebonites, the Nazarene, the Cathars, and all indigenous people of the world under the Pope's Doctrine of Discovery!

Your brothers and sisters are not the antichrist! In your literalism you've lost sight of the concept of "Christ" and the LOGOs too!



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
Well, the function of the OP is to describe and present New Testament teaching.
What John says in these passages is, by definition, the teaching of the New Testament.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
You're going with John's reasoning, advising modern Christians to consider those who don't conform to fundamental and literal Christianity antichrists.

P.S. I am certainly willing to stand by the ONLY instruction that John gives on the way these "antichrists" should be treated.
"Do not believe them... do not allow them to deceive you" (ch2 v26, ch4 v1).
It is advice which remains valid for Christians, and has become even more important in the modern world.
edit on 19-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


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".

Yes windword you are right in that not accepting John's Christ is not necessarily being against the concept of a Christ. Jesus is not the first nor last concept of a Christ but He is the Christ of the NT Apostles and Disciples which we reference as Christianity.

2nd John was addressed to Christianity so was not meant that Christ was of some other person other than Jesus. In that light it is understood by Christians that Jesus being the Christ of the God of Abraham had many people against His claim of being the Begotten Son of God. This was the actual meaning of anti-Christ. A Christ is not meant as the head deity but the anointed of the deity. Some religions will have several Christs and you can take your pick as to which one suits your belief but in this case it is designated that there is only one Christ who is the Begotten Son of God. So an anti-Christ, in this case, is one who is a adversary of the Son of God named Jesus.

There are also some who will deny that Jesus is the Son of God but yet believe that He is one of many prophets from God. These who believe that are also ant-Christs. They are actually denying that Jesus is the only Begotten from God and placing others as equal to Jesus. In one sense they are accepting many Christs and yet in doing so they are rejecting that Jesus is the only Begotten of God. So the entire premise is that "Only Begotten Son of God" is the meaning of 2nd John 1-7.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede




These who believe that are also ant-Christs. They are actually denying that Jesus is the only Begotten from God and placing others as equal to Jesus.


It's John's assertion that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, not Jesus', according to, ironically, John.


John 10:34
Jesus replied, "It is written in your own Scriptures that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!'


There are those who don't believe that Jesus is all that the Bible claims. Those people are not necessarily "anti" the teachings that Jesus espoused, but deny the claims of John, not believing him.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


It's John's assertion that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, not Jesus', according to, ironically, John. John 10:34 Jesus replied, "It is written in your own Scriptures that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!' There are those who don't believe that Jesus is all that the Bible claims. Those people are not necessarily "anti" the teachings that Jesus espoused, but deny the claims of John, not believing him.

Luke 22:67-71
(67) Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: (68) And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. (69) Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. (70) Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. (22:71) And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

The above verses are plain to explain that even the adversaries of Jesus understood His admission of being the Begotten of God.

John 10:34 must be taken back a few verses to gain the entire thought of what is being said.

The adversaries of Jesus understand that He claims to be from the Father God and that no living man has ever been in heaven with the Father till this very time of this confrontation.

Here the Jews are tempting Jesus
John 10:32-33
(32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

So you see that the Jews did understand that Jesus has all through His ministry exclaimed to be the Son of God.

Jesus then answered them with Psalms 82:6-7 which is written in the laws of their king David.

Psa 82:6-7
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Asaph relates in Psalms that it is written in the laws of the King that rulers are gods and yet being mortal men will die such as all men die. It has no inference that men are begotten of the most high God Yahuah.

John 10:34-35
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 10:35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

As Jesus relates this He is making His point by showing that if mortals can be gods by law then why can't I make the same claim without breaking the law?

But the entire point to be made here is the word "Begotten." We have Job where the sons of God were called to the front and among them was Satan. But Satan was not not "Begotten" of the Creator. Satan was created.



posted on Apr, 19 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
What is an antichrist?

Narratives need an anti...otherwise, there is no drama or redemptor, or redemption...in the to & fro, ups & downs, ins & outs of any story, there must be something to resist to validate the actions of a hero, of its heroism, righteousness...the invention of a 'supreme' resistance created by an Almighty who cannot with the blink of an Almighty eye, dispense with it, instead of relegating million of souls to a created hell, disappear its being - allowing it a starring role in the final act worthy of any hammer horror, makes complete sense...in a film script...

Å99
edit on 19-4-2015 by akushla99 because: E - dit



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: wasaka
I would analyse them in a different way.
I see the Beast from the sea as a political entity, a world-dominating state.
I see the Beast from the land, also called the "false prophet", as the leader of that state.
A good analogy would be the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler respectively.
The second figure is the one who could also be an "antichrist".
There is no reason for the Catholic church to be either of them, If anything, it would have to be identified with the Harlot, who is a specifically religious figure resting on the support of the political figures. However, I'm not committed to that identification either. I think we're still waiting for these images to be fulfilled.



The key is knowing these events were understood
and intended to be take place SOON -- in the life time
of to the readers.... not 2000 years in the future.

The proverbial hand-writing was on the wall (you
might say).... like standing atop a high tower, the
writer of REV. could see what was on the horizon
and predict the outcome, NERO, etc.

Looking back at that time period, and reading historic
documents, the case could be made that Paul was
the anti-Christ (or "the deceiver") as he was called.

With the passage of time AND perspective the Bible
begins to looses its sole authority and is revealed to
be a false authority in many ways.

I now view it as merely a history book.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
Looking back at that time period, and reading historic
documents, the case could be made that Paul was
the anti-Christ (or "the deceiver") as he was called.

Look at the historical documents again and check the dates.
Paul was already DEAD at the time when John was writing about antichrists, which makes it quite impossible for him to have been the coming antichrist that John was expecting.

Also re-check the definitions.
An antichrist is someone who denies that Christ "came in the flesh". We've been through all that.
Paul emphatically did not deny that Christ came in the flesh. He and the rest of the New Testament writers were in agreement with John on this point.
That's the value of having the term properly defined. You can check suggestions against the definition.
edit on 20-4-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Dajjal -Antichrist- is the most dangerous thing will happened in the end of the time.
Every Prophet warned his people about this guy and Antichrist will rule for period of time.
Our prophet Mohammed Warn us about this guy he will perform Flase Mircals but in the end Isa Ibn Mariam -Jesus Christ - will Kill him in the battle.

Antichrist will claim that he's a Prophet then claim to son of god then the GOD itself.

No one should face this guy even if you think you have strong faith because he is so tricky so Believer should aviod him as they can.

Hadhrat Imraan bin Husain (R.A.) relates that, "I heard Rasulullah- Mohammed- (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) saying: "Since the birth of Adam (A.S.) till the advent of Qiyamah - Doom Day - there is no fitnah (evil, test) much greater that of Dajjal -AntiChrist."

Imraan bin Husain (R.A.) says Rasulullah-Mohammed- (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: "Those who hear about Dajjal-Antichrist- should stay far from him. By Allah! A person will approach him thinking him to be a Believer, but on seeing his amazing feats he will become his follower."



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Mohannad82
What you're describing is a version of the "coming antichrist" that John predicted, but John was also talking about "many antichrists".
As I was outlining in the OP, John described these lesser antichrists as anyone who "denied Christ" or who "denied that Christ was come in the flesh".




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join