What is meant by "Antichrist"?

Many have mistaken what is meant by "Antichrist", confusing "opposite of" and "opposed to".

The mistake occurs in the meaning attributed to the prefix “anti-“.

"Opposite of" Not "Opposed to"

In modern thinking, “anti-“ usually denotes a condition of conflict. However, as used in relation to the Antichrist, the prefix “anti-“ means “placement opposite to or in contrast with another”.

A striking illustration of this latter usage is found in the geography of the Middle East.

Just north of Israel is the country of Lebanon. Within Lebanon are the Lebanon Mountains. To the east of Lebanon is another mountain range known as Anti-Lebanon. The Bekaa Valley separates the Lebanon Mountains from the Anti-Lebanon Mountains.

The prefix “anti-“ is used to distinguish one mountain range from the other. The prefix does not suggest a moral opposition or any posture of antagonism.

The relationship of Jesus the Christ and the Antichrist is similar. They stand “opposite” each other in place and time. They are not “opposed” to one another. They are complementary in their respective aspects within the larger Plan of Salvation.

Antichrist A Proper Title

"Antichrist" is used throughout my studies as a title, not a description. When used formally, it should be rendered "The Antichrist". The term refers to a defined, specific person rather than any one or series in a set of oppositional concepts or groups.

I will have more to say later about the usage and meaning of the prefix “anti-“ in it’s first-century context.

As I have said before, your point of view is intriguing. Considering the fact that I can't really tell you where the word "anti-Christ" has ever been used in the bible, not more than a few times I know, I am not sure that people can really acurately give any opinion of him.

I know in the book of Daniel, "the King with the fierce countenance" is spoken of in some great detail.We are looking for a man of an ANGY appearance, not some dreamy "Charismatic" looking individual. I mean, it goes so far as to state that the man will have a "puffed opinion of himself" and "will be without regard of women."

Now, I used to think that the whole "without regard of women" was indicative of someone who used and abused women. However, I currently think that it means exactly what it says. He will be a man who has no interest in women and is most likely bitter towards them. Perhaps his appeals to several women were thwarted so he decided to no longer pursue. I think this "king with the fierce countenance" of anti-Christ, whichever one chooses to call him, will be a celibate individual.

He is also a man "who understands dark sentences." He will obviously be an intellectual superstar. He will be a man who has the answers, at least initially, and he is probably aware of the True plan of God, which is a pleasure that 99.999999% of the world's population does not have access to. All we do as humans is speculate as to the True mind of God.

There are other interpretations of the personality references I alluded to, but the interpretations that I just gave you are the ones that make sense to me. Unless, this guy that you say you know fulfills all of the above characteristics, he cannot possibly be the anti-Christ.

We are basically looking for a very intelligent, virginal character who will be the anti-Christ.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I see your point but mate its a very thin argument, if I am correct only John spoke of this Antichrist and its summed up perfectly by 2.22 - Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist.

This Anti Christ thing is blown way out of proportion and I have written many times on how I interpret the concept....its any person who denies Christ and his teachings. Not any specific individual or person of significance and also could be construed as people who place materialism and selfness above the teachings of christ.

SpeakerofTruth,

The person of whom I write has never had sexual relations with a woman and does not plan to do so.

True to my pledge to supplement my article “What is meant by ‘Antichrist’?” with a discussion of the usage and meaning of the prefix “anti-“ in it’s first-century context, I proffer the following:

What is the proper meaning of “Antichrist”?

Consider the following discussion from Baron Porcelli’s “The Antichrist”, which he published in 1927:

(from Chapter 1, “Meaning of the Term”)

“The name ho antichristos, the Antichrist, is thus described by the learned Elliott [“Horae”]: ‘A name very notable. For it was not a pseudo-Christ, as of those self-styled Christs (in professed exclusion and denial of Jesus Christ that the Lord declared would appear in Judaea before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who did, in fact, appear there and then; but was a name of new formation, expressly compounded, it might seem, by the Divine Spirit for the occasion, and as if to express some idea, through its etymological force, which no older word could so well express, Antichrist; even as if he would appear some way as a Vice-Christ, in the mystic Temple or professing Church; and in that character act the usurper and adversary against Christ’s true Church and Christ Himself. Nor did it fail to strengthen this anticipation that the Gnostic heresiarchs, and others did in a subordinate sense act that very part already; by setting Christ practically aside, while in mouth confessing Him, and professing themselves in His place the power, wisdom and salvation of God.’

“Elliott thus explains the Greek word Antichristos: ‘When anti is compounded with a noun signifying an agent of any kind, or functionary, the compound word either signifies a vice-functionary, or a functionary of the same kind opposing, or sometimes both.

“’In the New Testament the only compounds of the kind are used in the sense of the first class of words; as anthupatos – Pro-consul – Acts xiii. 7, 8, 12; xix. 38; and both on that account, and yet more because the old word, pseudo-Christ, would almost have expressed the idea of a counter-Christ, I conclude that this must be St. John’s intended sense of Antichrist.’ ‘I must particularly beg the reader to bear in mind that the word cannot with etymological propriety mean simply a person opposed to Christ; but either a vice-Christ, or counter-Christ, or both.’

‘The name – the then new and very singular name that John gave it, under divine inspiration, of Antichrist, while admitting the secondary senses of an adversary of Christ, did yet primarily, indeed necessarily, indicate (according to the etymological formation of the word) that he would be so through his being in some manner a Vice-Christ, or one professedly assuming the character, occupying the place, and fulfilling the functions, of Christ. An excellent comment on its force and significance is furnished by the Romanists’ appellative of Anti-Pope (Greek, antipapa), an appellation given in the sense not simply of an enemy to the Pope, but of a hostile self-substituted, usurping Pope, one occupying the proper Pope’s place, receiving his honours and exercising his functions.’

“Such was the view generally adopted by the Fathers; whether in reference to the prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, or St. John, they speak of the grand enemy, therein alike prefigured, not as an Atheist so much, but rather as a usurper of Christ’s place before the world. So the Greek Fathers generally, e.g., Irenaeus, v. 25 Hippolytus, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret. The Latin Father did not enter into the proper force of the Greek compound, and thus expounded it as ‘an adversary of the Lord,’ so Cyprian; or ‘opposed to Christ,’ so Augustine. Justin Martyr and Chrysostom use antitheos, not as a professed rebel against God, but a usurper of His place, by blasphemously proclaiming himself equal to God.’

. . .

“The learned Rev. M.W. Foye [Romish Rites] says: ‘Most English scholars are liable much to mistake the etymological and true meaning of the word Antichrist. After a due examination of the Greek prefix, anti, when compounded with a noun personal, I feel assured that the following may be laid down as a safe general – I would say, all but universal – rule, viz., the Greek anti prefixed to a personal noun; (1) signifying a public ministerial functionary; or (2) a ministerial official agent of any sort, public or private, signifies Pro, in the stead of, substitute, vice, vicar; (3) prefixed to other personal nouns it signifies emulation, rivalry, hostility.’

“These three lists contain all the personal nouns that are found with anti prefixed to the except Christos. The following brief passage from Dion Cassius [“Lib. LIII”] will put the rule beyond question, so, at least, as regards its first and second braches. ‘He retained in Italy the names both of imperator and of consul, but as to those rulers who, out of Italy, were governors in the stead of them (anti ekeinon), all these he entitled antistrategous and anthupatous.’

“The learned Dr. Wordsworth [“Is the Papacy predicted by St. Paul?”] says: ‘The person in whom this system is embodied is describes as antikeimenos (2 Thess. ii. 4), i.e., literally, one setting himself in opposition, and particularly as a rival foundation, in the place of or against another foundation. Now, be it remembered . . . ‘Other foundation can no one lay than that which already lieth (keitoi, remark the word), which is Jesus Christ’ (I Cor. iii. II). May not he who calls himself the Rock of the Church be rightly called ho antikeimenos?’

. . . .

“The learned Dr. Wylie [“The Papacy”] says: ‘. . . When we are able to put aside some of the false Antichrists, we come more within sight of the true one. . . .’

“The ‘Chronicles of Zachariah of Mytilene’ (6th century) Ch. I., par. I (Burry’s Byzantine Texts), says: ‘King Justin made his sister’s son, who was General, Anti-Caesar, and Justinian became Anti-Caesar on the 5th day of the week in the last week of the fast.’

“Hales’ Chronology, Vol. II, Part I., p. 550, says: ‘The Vice-gerent of Jesus Christ, which, by a singular concurrence, meant the same as the obnoxious Antichristus – Antichrist – originally signifying a pro-Christ or deputy-Christ, or a false Christ who assumed his authority and acted in his stead.’”

COMMENTS:

Based upon the foregoing considerations, I reiterate my contention that Jesus Christ and the Antichrist are complementary to each other.

Many have mistaken what is meant by "Antichrist", confusing "opposite of" and "opposed to".

The mistake occurs in the meaning attributed to the prefix “anti-“.

In modern thinking, “anti-“ usually denotes a condition of conflict. However, as used in relation to the Antichrist, the prefix “anti-“ means “placement opposite to or in contrast with another”.

The relationship of Jesus the Christ and the Antichrist is similar. They stand “opposite” each other in place and time. They are not “opposed” to one another. They are two messiahs having different roles and functions.

the most common know translation is adversary

but it also means in place of Christ

so anyone who thinks there is another way to God without Christ
is Antichrist, or having the spirit of Antichrist according to Christian doctrine

Please read "The ‘Anti-Christos’ is Not ‘A-Christos’" for a lengthy study of this issue:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mazzroth
I see your point but mate its a very thin argument, if I am correct only John spoke of this Antichrist and its summed up perfectly by 2.22 - Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist.
...

Focus on words.... "He denies Jesus is the Christ." What would that mean when most people don't even know the difference? Well, by Jesus he meant all those who believe in Jesus (and Bible+church) as form of salvation, which is NOT correct. You need to believe in Christ inside yourself and of course we all agree Jesus was Christ.

This is what Antichrist will say to people - seek kingdom of heaven inside yourself not in church. Jesus said this too, but they censored it for the most of the time because it means no need for the church, at least not for salvation.

Antichrist comes in peace and he will be peaceful man and yes he will be a man. I explained few times already why and also why there are 'antichrist' events or groups.

i think antichrist, along with satan, has a meaning close to that of "scapegoat" thing that we blame so we don't have to take personal accountability.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i think antichrist, along with satan, has a meaning close to that of "scapegoat" thing that we blame so we don't have to take personal accountability.

Madness, to some extent,I tend to agree. People who do heinous acts always say, "Well, the devil made me do it." Boy, that dude gets blamed for everything. I think to myself, "No, you made yourself do it. Not Satan,not God, you did it. Those being can't make anyone do anything they don't choose to do."

Even in the bible, Satan is referred to as none other that the "Tempter." He may tempt someone to do something, but he doesn't MAKE anyone do it.

Geez, I thought that's what his nephew called his transvestite uncle.

Occam

Maybe Antichrist is also current situation in Middle East or people who are doing it and talking how they spread freedom, or maybe people on other side too. Anyway, check out Prophecies of Nostradamus: part 2/8, Cast and Characters for some interesting read.

I p 194 (cX-71)
Despite the massive propaganda campaigns of the Antichrist that paint
a grand and wondrous picture of his worldwide achievements, other
glimpses of his heinous atrocities "behind the scenes" will leak out.
He will not be able to live up to the image his followers project of
him.

This is like describing current Bush administration.

I p 188 (cIII-95)
The Antichrist will corrupt the religion of Christianity with the
intent of destroying it, but also distort the beliefs of Islam. He
will disguise his agenda of conquest as a way of life and a
replacement for religion.

I agree, they demonize Islam and Christianity is corrupted almost totally.

I p 249 (cI-92)
For a short period the reign of the Antichrist over his realm will be
no fighting because of his police state. But people will begin to
rebel in the memory of lost freedoms. There will be very much death
and destruction, with many people dying for their cause. Prophecies
from the Revelations will apply, such as the quote about "rivers of
blood up to horse's harnesses". The times will be extremely violent
and traumatic.

Just look at all truth movements and what people really think about government today.


I p 274
The Antichrist will be doomed from the start of his campaign, because
he is against central spiritual forces that make up the fabric of the
universe. For people who choose this path, "It's just a matter of how
far they go before they fail and what effects they have on the lives
around them." Like the ultimate downfall of many tyrants his empire
and power will be inherently unstable. His own subcommanders will be
power hungry in his image and his authority will fragment around him.
The political map of the world, the boundaries of countries, will
change but the continents of the world will still be shaped the same.

I agree too, if you work against laws of universe and love you are history.