Who Was the Anti-Christ, Was it Paul?

It was always whispered by people at church that there was an anti-Christ who was not Satan of either the Garden of Eden or Job's time. Some even gave the impression they thought some of today's bogey men in banking, industry, government or leading our Institutions was he born in our time.

I don't buy into that simply because its been too long since christ's supposed time and no one then knew if budding Christianity would survive any length of time, despite having the protection of Emperor and Kings all who used it to qualify their governance. So it seems that an anti christ would have lived around or close to the time of Christ.

It seems strange that more of the New Testament is about Paul's usual modus operandi of, apart from writing copious letters, making a journey, arriving, causing havoc and having to leave, considerably more than is actually about Christ's life and teaching. Its all a little too pat in the bible and looking through what was deliberately left out of the bible we get a very different perspective on Paul.

We know what he actually taught (albeit its excluded from the bible) through the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a beautiful young woman engaged to marry Thamyris a leading Iconiun citizen. However, Thecla was obviously smitten and very much influenced by Paul and refused to honour her engagement. A very distressed Thamyris, saw Demas and Hermogenes who had arrived with Paul as travelling companions and asked what Paul was teaching. They told him Paul taught that "You will not be raised from the dead unless you remain chaste, abstain from polluting the flesh and guard your chastity". Interestingly he was preaching that to ordinary people, not a group of hermits or the the likes of future nuns or monks etc so this was a very difficult message e.g. no sex if you want resurrection. That is subtly not what Christ taught and seems to undermine his teaching especially on resurrection through the forgiveness of sins.

We rely on the bible for information about Christ, we know its a book written by men with a vested interested in that it qualifies their positions of power and authority - what we don't know is exactly, unless reading what these men deliberately left out of the bible, what they concocted and perhaps we have already had the anti christ in Paul. What we do know is that the actual disciples did not seem to be much contact with Paul or were particularly enthusiastic about Paul, so when he was teaching 'their religion as taught by christ' in foreign countries they would have had little real knowledge of what he was teaching unless it was recorded by someone they trusted.
The second subtle difference between Christ and Paul is their attitude to the role of women. The Church Fathers wanted a patriarchal religion with women excluded and Paul was probably the vehicle for this especially as he himself couldn't live by his own teachings.

(Ref Prof Bart D Ehrman and Chair Dept of Religious Studies Unkiversity of North Carolina and JR Porter Prof Emeritus of Theorlogy at University of Exeter and former Fellow of Oriel College Oxford).

a reply to: Shiloh7
The "antichrist" is a word given to us by John as someone expected in the future (1 John ch2 v18).
The key point to be observed is that when this definition of the future antichrist was written, PAUL WAS ALREADY DEAD.
Therefore John cannot have been talking about Paul.

Christ means anointed. So Anti Christ must mean the ones who refuses anointment and works against anointment. I can see Paul as one of them.

Exactly. I don't know why Paul got so much space in the New Testament, he must have had his backers when the book was put together and the "official" entries were chosen. He gave women quite the ride out of power in the religion. Paul's problem was that he was a murderer at heart and probably channeled that part of his personality into his zealotry and teachings. As for anti-Christ, six of one half a dozen of his mother, anything that directs an individual's mind to be opposed to the outer and inner-teachings of Jesus can print that on their calling card.

a reply to: Shiloh7
Nero was. At least from my understanding and reading. His name even worked out to be equal to the term/name 666. He didn't care to much for Christians either.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Nero is a good one but wasn't he insane in which case I would have felt better with someone deliberately conspiring against christ's teachings rather than someone merely mentally deficient.

Also I was told that one can virtually prove anything using codes as with statistics - its what you look for, not necessarily what is actually originally intended.

a reply to: DISRAELI

John talks about a number of anti-christs having come before. Its also thought that Daniel 7. 25 also alludes to this person so there's no need to shout.

Its not that easy to pinpoint exactly, when people died, unless officially recorded or when things were written and especially exactly who wrote them and their agenda. A lot of this information is stymied because the original disciples don't appear to have written gospels that we have fully intact today. We only have writings dating from much later, copies from copies and importantly some simply carrying forward mistakes.

Perhaps today with all the new information from to hand e.g. Nag Hammadi etc and the fact a lot has been learned about linguistics and about mistranslations, we have far more information than was to hand when our bibles were actually constructed and its time for a new and more comprehensive version which includes what was left out so people can make their own minds up about this book and religion in general. For many in the UK it would also be interesting to have a note about the differences between the Geneva Bible and King James's as well as a note about his seeking divine kingship and the right to rule.

However was Paul teaching a subtly different doctrine to christ?

I kind of see the anti-christ as a spirit that moves within the church. I have often said that I think the religious texts are more like two way highways than they are one way streets.... they can lead you in both directions, it just depends on which direction your heart's desire leads you in. if it's christ spirit leading your heart, you will latch onto the idea of forgiveness, love, charity, ect... if it's the anti-christ spirit, well, you will latch on to those things that you see that seem to promise you more power, more wealth, more control. when enough of the people within the church have hearts that are being ruled by an anti-christian spirit, well, we can look back at history, the witch burnings and such that people today point to as a testament against the christian church. and well, we look at the churches the past few decades, the prosperity movement, the idea that they should be rulers within the gov't, ect...
the anti-christ has been around, working it's way into places of power, using a twisted version of the bible in an attempt to control the masses into doing things that is so out of line of what "christian" is all about. one cannot seek to control another without first taking his eyes off of christ, and when he turns around, another has replaced christ without him knowing...that other is the anti-christ.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I'm Christian but I don't believe some of the BS included in the package. Besides that, I refuse to waste time trying to guess who is the antichrist, it's pointless.

a reply to: dawnstar

I agree with what you say. The parables that Christ taught are for me the basis of spiritual belief and how I would like to live my life - albeit aggravating situations. The Good Samaritan is particularly appropriate today with the refugee situation, the sense of his stories are timeless. However what we attribute to biblical teaching today today is not original. We know the commandments come from the Hammarubi code which itself is predated by the Sumerian Code of Ur Nammu.

Its probably more that when Christianity was forged into a religion with political overtones (in fact all the desert religions, that the essence of spirituality started to erode back to the exploitative world we have today, which we are encouraged by our local churches/religious institutions to abide by. In fact a product of religion is to disempower us, stop us from thinking for ourselves and by the removal of teaching us about reincarnation, threaten and make us afraid of being cursed into hell if we don't conform to our current rulership.

a reply to: Trueman

You're not wrong but I have always had a fascination for our past and what we believe in and love researching it. Its a Bank Holiday, I have a bout of bronchitis so I am stuck at home and back with my nose in the books and tissues etc. Once you read John where he claims numerous anti christs you get the gist of where we are but Paul has never made sense to me.

Paul was a anti-Christ before he went to Damascus (Syria)

a reply to: Shiloh7
right now, today, we have a portion of the church being led to believe that they have a right to rule the world in God's name, literally, by taking political power, regardless of how they do it.

this was not what I was taught in sunday school as a child.
and later as an adult, I watched as this philosophy tore a good church apart.
the name it and claim it bit led many into some pretty massive debt.
the quest for power had the men tearing each other down any way they could because a little voice in their head pointed out how old the pastor was and well, showed them the way they could be the next pastor.... (the pastor brought in his son to replace him, he was old, but not no fool) suddenly, there was all this bickering on the different "laws"....is it "the father, the son, the holy ghost" or is it just in the name of jesus. is she really christian, I mean if she was, surely she wouldn't be seen in pants!! and well the one that drove me away..... "Well if her husband doesn't want her to go to church, she shouldn't be here!"

I think that there have been times when the truth rang out within the religions but well, just as quickly it was corrupted by those who's hearts wished to twist that truth into something that would serve to bring them to power. The sumerians probably took bits and pieces from others to create religions and those they took from took from others. they all added to it and they all took away that which didn't serve their purpose.
meanwhile in other lands other groups were left untouched and were developing their own truths, adopting from other groups beliefs they found useful, removing bits that no longer serves, ect.

what really baffles me is that if you actually sit down and read the bible, from cover to cover....
even their most esteemed, like abraham, like david, solomon, ect..... well, they just aren't people that I would wish to aspire to be like. to me, much of the book seems to be more of what one shouldn't do instead of what one should...
and well, outside of the words that appear red in my bible (the words Christ spoke), it doesn't seem to be worthy of the being the one and only truth...

a reply to: dawnstar

Coming from a mixed religion family I didn't have to go to church and so didn't until I got older and got interested in ancient history. I was introduced to a vicar from a Central church whose knowledge was amazing. I went to a catholic school so had the usual brainwashing but that merely disgusted me. Religion has never been pushed within the family because we are even more diverse now. But I wondered whether we looked into a gentler world then as people had had quite enough of war, blood and gore. All of us kids loved the festivals because the local vicar's wife made the most fabulous picnics and they were celebrations.

What `i remember from school was getting the ruler when I questioned things such as the Ark - how did they get all those diverse animals onto it, did the bigger ones eat the smaller ones and what about the feed and drainage etc. Good wallop for the last one, but no answers just told blind faith was a virtue.

That attitude lasted though out my going to church and it was made unpleasant if you questioned something or asked about things like the astrological references in texts being discussed. What interested me was the attitude of the top dog 'elders' whom consisted of the vicar's wife who although tiny was a bruiser, our local estate agent and accountant. I could honestly say not one had been introduced to humility or compassion. The accountant had demanded sterilisation before she was 28, got it and was headed to the top. She even left her husband to marry a more important man in the community and suddenly he sat next to her. I was very glad my son never got into the Vicar's wife's class at school.

Most of the others who went were there because of habit or getting their kids into the local church school which was the best in the area. Not having found anyone there truly spiritual except for one lady who everyone poked fun at because of her simplistic attitude to life, I have to admit that when I read through the bible itself I was shocked and horrified that it was considered a religious book.

In principle you have a God who decides his people should have the best bit of real estate in the area and who should take it by force. Now if he were god with all the trimmings etc, he would have been able to simply 'Make it so". But they had to fight for it. Women were given the guilt trip despite the fact that God clearly trusted them to nurture a baby and create a life. However when you read stories about pretending to get people to convert and once the men had been circumcised, dashing in to kill them off and grab the women and chattels etc that is dishonourable and dishonest. It also breaks the commandment thou shalt not covet your neighbours goods or his wife. The story of the concubine is again a simply disgusting tale including her rape and murder - yet we swear the truth on - the holy bible in our courts. Its a travesty. Its been gotten away with because I suspect its less that i in every 100 who has ever read the bible cover to cover. Most accept it and the State keeps us busy working to pay our taxes so leisure time is not often given up for bible study.

As you point out none of the Patriarchs are worth knowing or especially honourable and throughout the book God's commandments are bent to suit. One thing I was surprised about though was that the Israelites didn't want Yahweh and he actually impaled their leaders, terrifying them until they accepted his covenant - just another little pearl the desert religions don't like to dwell on or publicise. (Christian O'Briens books are very good as his translations are extremely accurate and unabridged.

I suspect as you say there are many truths but whether we wish to be hoodwinked in order to keep the establishments of our countries in power and sanctimonious piety is quite another matter - I expect many of us are not. Today in the UK I have noticed two individuals whose links to religion are well known yet both are being (one posthumously) investigated for paedophelia, I suspect that alone makes the point that it appears there are many anti Christs today within Christianity.

a reply to: Shiloh7

my father was raised anglican protestant, my mother, if I am right was raised more amish or a similar religion. neither were that religious raising us. I had some catholic friends that I played with alot and well the catholic church was near us and I did find it interesting. I asked my dad if I could go to church with my catholic friends and well, he wouldn't let me but did give me a bible to read. I wasn't even in the fourth grade at the time but I did read that book from cover to cover, didn't understand alot of it but I did. and have many times since.
I think the main impression I got from it at that age was God really didn't like women too much....

it wasn't till I was a teenager that I actually went to church and it wasn't a catholic one. by that time, I had come to the conclusion that the kids that were raised catholics were some of the most rebellous I know to be honest. my dad was a WW2 vet who was stationed in india and well, I think his experience there kind of changed his views on religions, don't even think it mattered what religion it was.

I believe there is a God, I believe that Christ delivered a message that was badly needed at that time. but well, what can I say about a religion that seems to feel that the spirituality of women is nearly irrelevant, which it does seem feel with it's well if the husband doesn't want her to be there, she shouldn't, and of course a book that demotes women to near slave is "God's word", and historically, the jews felt that the women really had no place in the religion, they weren't taught how to read the scritures, those who felt the desire to attend the religous worship were penned off so far from the action they couldn't hear anything anyways, thus the command that women don't talk in the church....that's all the jewish women had to do, they couldn't participate.
well... I don't really get into church anymore, I open the bible only occassionally, and quite frankly I've transformed my god into a goddess just so I can relate to her.

but oh, ya, it's the true path!!!

don't think so!

a reply to: DISRAELI

Let's take a look at that verse.

1 John 2
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

John says that many antichrists have already come at the time of him writing this. This verse in no way discredits Paul being an antichrist as you seem to think.

a reply to: Shiloh7

It was always whispered by people at church that there was an anti-Christ who was not Satan of either the Garden of Eden or Job's time.

An Anti Christ is a living human who is against Christ. There are many Anti Christs today as well as in the days of Jesus.

1John_2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

We know what he actually taught (albeit its excluded from the bible) through the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a beautiful young woman engaged to marry Thamyris a leading Iconiun citizen.

There is much doubt in that story and it was for that reason it was left out of the works of Paul. The main reason it was not accepted by Tertullian and Jerome is because it is written in the first letter of Corinthians -- the following

1Corinthians 7:6-11
(6) But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.
(7) Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
(8) But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
(9) But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(10) But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
(11) (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

As you can see this contradicts the story of Paul teaching that one must refrain from marriage or remain a virgin. Paul is reported to have said from the onset that this was not a commandment. God gave the command to Adam to procreate and to teach otherwise would be in contradiction with God. Paul bashing is nothing but diversion from the truth. Paul was accepted and loved by James and all of the first synagogue Apostles and disciples. Both he and Peter were companions in Rome as well as Luke was his scribe among many others. To opine otherwise is against all NT literature and not true according to the authors of the NT.

'Paul most likely contributes, at the very most, seven letters to the NT and is likely to be far less. Most people do not realize this nor are aware of this fact. The Apostle John is credited with four and possibly five letters which is the most of the NT authors contributions. I believe you have been taught a lie to influence your mind. ATS is noted for Paul bashers.

There are many people now who believe that Paul was false, whether intentionally or accidentally. He either misunderstood or mistranslated things or purposefully changed them to be more dramatic. I am reading a book right now (the Hiram Key) that talks about how people like Paul didn't understand what Jesus said because he used expressions from his people that weren't known to outsiders. For example, apparently they called people outside of their group the dead, so raising someone from the dead meant converting them, not ressurrecting them.

Many people also think Paul was still working for the Romans when he was building up Christianity.

a reply to: dawnstar

I have often said that I think the religious texts are more like two way highways than they are one way streets.... they can lead you in both directions, it just depends on which direction your heart's desire leads you in. if it's christ spirit leading your heart, you will latch onto the idea of forgiveness, love, charity, ect... if it's the anti-christ spirit, well, you will latch on to those things that you see that seem to promise you more power, more wealth, more control.

So beautifully said -- thank you! I couldn't agree more, but I never could have said it so well.

Edgar Cayce, the "Sleeping Prophet," once said that "I can read what I want into the Bible, and you can read what you want out of the Bible." He was speaking to reincarnation, but it applies to pretty much everything. Where I read the Bible and find the passages commanding us to love and forgive and not judge and that whatever I do for the lesser I also do for Jesus, others will read the Bible find the passages about judgment and condemnation and punishment for the sinners.

And, in regards to the OP, nine times out of ten, while I'm quoting Jesus, others are quoting Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul.) Maybe I'm just stubborn and shortsighted as many have suggested to me (to put it politely), but in the final analysis, I'm a Christian not a Paulian, so I'm going with Jesus!

a reply to: Shiloh7

They have it all wrong, the anti-christ was my mother-in-law and that witch is dead, so no worries.