Who came first, an antichrist or Jesus?

a reply to: 2012newstart

Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to assume, the next great leader of Israel to be the so called antichrist. It goes against the very texts that the supporters of the end time theory of antichrist quote. Ezekiel, Isaiah and Daniel talk of an INVADER of Israel. That one, the end times theorists say, would be the "antichrist". And not the leader of Israel in those times. Let alone some anti-messiah. The changing the picture with its negative image is dangerous. It could make, after all, many of the Christians to side with the invader of Israel, (i.e. the "antichrist") and not with God's chosen people. Let determine which side we want to be at, at Armageddon and before that,. Because we don't know when Armageddon and the Second Coming will be. But we know which side is which even today. We know God made his choice once with Abraham, and a second time by choosing Jesus to be born as a Jew in Israel. We'd better not run away from that heritage, exchanging somehow the personality of Jesus with something he was not. He was not some universal body mixed of all races. He was JEW. We cannot deprive Jesus of his body, without running into heresy or worse, into the scenario of the "antichrist", as John speaks in his epistle (whoever denies Jesus came into the flesh has the spirit of the antichrist). Unfortunately, much of the Christian representation of Jesus' personality denies His body characteristics, making of him some morphing image without clear distinctions in any respect. Practically, that is already siding with a spirit that could be called anti-messiah spirit. In a way, if someone looks for the antichrist so badly, one could find him incorporated centuries back into that way. Not as one person rather as tendency of spiritual thought to negate the personality of Jesus, to deprive Jesus of being incarnated male Jew who walked fully His earthly way before ascending to God.