It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


a study of antichrist

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:07 AM
dont worry this is not the typical run of the mill, adnauseum, rendition of the antichrist that says politician A is the antichrist. A problem that seems to plague our wonderful community. This is a realworld analytical view on how people distort, ruin, confuse, and desensitize the legend of antichrist.


posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:07 AM

The antichrist

When you ask - most people - what or who the antichrist is, you'll usually get a response similar to:
The antichrist will be a man that rises from the Middle East, and leads us all into the apocalypse that is told about in the book of revelation, after luring us all into his grasp. He will have all the answers, know all your secrets, and be the most charming and intelligent person the world has ever known.
In the end, the antichrist will usher in the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, in which we will all arise (ascension) into the heavens and live in Gods kingdom forever and ever.

Nothing wrong, or blasphemous about this train of thinking, what so ever. It’s actually very comforting if you’re a Christian. If you know that the faithful will be with God, before the real pain and suffering begins on those who “don’t believe”
However , this concept of antichrist never appears in the Bible. If it is not in the bible, how can we, as Christians, take it to be true? The bible does speak of ‘antichrist’ as a label. It never speaks of ‘antichrist’ as a rank, or a position.

Though, it is hard to say with 100% accuracy, the bible does make one reference to “the Antichrist” with a capital A, in John chapter 2, which one most certainly would assume applies to Lucifer. Modern scholars of religious study suggest that, more often than not, most religions (especially Christianity) give us the notion that Satan and God do not come onto our plane of existence. Instead, they choose to manifest themselves in forms of encouragement and joy, as well as fear and suffering.
This is the main reason that, by biblical interpretation, Lucifer cannot exist as “the antichrist” that these legends speak of.

But hey –
why is this a big deal? I don’t get it
Is probably on your mind at this moment, and I understand. Ill get to that in a second

The bible makes numerous references to ‘antichrist’ but every reference which is made, is done so with the assertion that it applies to all whom are void of Christ and God. Not a single man or woman.

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18 AV)

“Many antichrists already” is the key phrase in this argument. One may suggest that before hand, John makes reference to *the* Antichrist. However; antichrist in and of its self can also be used to describe a plural sense.
As Johns statement, in my opinion, should say
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that THE antichrist shall come.”
If he intends to speak of a singular Antichrist (earthly form of Lucifer)
Instead, John says what I suggest is a plural form of the term antichrist. Meaning all whom are void of Christ, and therefore God.

So, why is this such a big issue, you are probably begging for me to get to the point?

Well, for me the issue is simple. Its that people learn of such a vile and disgusting notion of *the* Antichrist, and choose to twist it and manipulate it to fit their own personal agendas.
Through the years, the story of antichrist has changed countless times.
It’s been used to

  • Describe Politicians. Nothing will work better on a group of people than fear. A person is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it (Tommy Lee Jones, MIB)

  • Sell books. Because, after all, it does make for a very interesting story.
  • Intellectual “pissing matches”. After all, in a world of biblical scholars, the ones who ‘reign supreme’ are the ones who have the most believers in their own interpretations.

In order for any of these three concepts to exist, the legend of the antichrist must be adapted to fit its new use. To catch a glimpse of that, lets evaluate:

That list can truly go on forever. But I use a few commonly used examples in today’s world to illustrate my point:
People don’t take it seriously anymore. Its too easy for someone to piece together a half-assed story through 6 degrees of information. Its too easy to point the finger at a member of political opposition and fear-monger your followers into not voting for a person, for fear that “they are the antichrist”

It is the human thirst for power that has twisted the notion of antichrist. It has turned it from a category of human beings, into one man who will rule everything and kill all.

I’ve argued with countless people about the legend of the Antichrist. They ALWAYS bring up Nostradamus to try and support their claim that the Antichrist will be *A* man.

But I proclaim: How can one use Nostradamus as a reference point for Christian belief? The bible makes no mention of any of the things that are found in his quatrains. His creative writing has been used to point at two historical figures as previous two antichrists: Adolf Hitler and Napoleon.
Supporters of the claim will most likely bring up the scripture that I outlined earlier in this post.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

And they proclaim that “even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time” as a notion that says there have been antichrists before, and will be one more.

But that line of thinking can only come from modern times. IE: After the reign of Hitler and Napoleon. These words that are being argued were written well before these two historical villains ever prevailed.

So I believe it makes more sense to say that John was instead referring to the Godless, than writing to millions of people 2000 years into the future.

Because after-all, if he was writing to the people of the future, then his words can forever be speculated, because no “numbers” are given as to when an end to the chain of “many antichrists” should end. It will always be “one more”

By smearing the antichrist logo all over everything that is disagreeable, in an attempt to discredit it, one is only just weakening the notion and the disturbing nature that this type of evil does exist.

To be in denial of Christ and completely Godless is a scary thing. Many intellectuals “free themselves” of their religious chains, arguable, because they feel nobody is control of them, or for one of another countless reasons.

As our society progresses, so does our understanding of things around us. The more we think we understand something, the easier it becomes to use, and the more we tend to use it. However, the more it gets used, the less it becomes understood, as it becomes subject to a matter of opinion.

The antichrist legend is no different. It started out as a term used to describe a certain grouping of individuals, though very terrifying. To be an ‘antichrist’ was appalling and hell worthy. It was a very bad thing. (for lack of a better way of saying it…)

But now its more looked upon as a joke. Its used everywhere to describe everything, and certainly the antichrist cannot be ‘everything’. God is ‘everything’.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 04:08 AM
I posted this article, which is soley my interpretation of the bible and religious study, in an effort to open the eyes of some people. I do not mean this in a negative, or condescending manner. I mean to enlighten and to ‘deny ignorance’ as it were. I mean to get people to stop talking about “this person is the antichrist” and “that person is the antichrist” because no one person can be *the* antichrist.
We are only more powerful over Lucifer in the presence of Christ and God. To use loosely, lightly, and in a jovial manner, the idea of a godless incantation of Satan, is, in my opinion, a major sin.
Human beings are not perfect, and do sin, regardless of how hard we try.
But to not try at all, and continue to sin, is to be, by pure definition, antichrist.

I thank you for reading, and I look forward to discussion and questions
All comments are welcome, but I ask you keep the personal insults out of this. Civility and Decorum. Argue the post, not the poster…you get the drift

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:43 PM
I liked your disclaimer. At least you don't come off as 'it's your way or the highway."

So, yes - my understanding is that being antichrist is a label. But at some point in time if all the people that fit this label come together, as a body, in direct opposition to God and Jesus, one of them will end up being their leader.

So my question is this. Why does it bother you, that this would be leader is called antichrist?

Would you rather he be called a name that was actually applied to him, such as 'the Prince of this world', or the 'abomination' that causes desolation?

Christ is light and opposite him is darkness and darkness doesn't understand the light.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Myrtales Instinct]

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:07 PM
the reasons it bothers me is because everyone uses the name "antchrist" these days.

Its like calling someone a dirty word.

To reference my thinking - if you've ever watched south park

there was an episode of south park where television started airing the word *poop* but in its vulgar form.

The widespread use of all curse words set off an explosion of chaos and destruction from these 'symbols of apocolypse'

its just a cartoon, but the idea is still the same

I agree with your notion that one person has to be their leader, but that doesnt make that one person *the* antichrist

Only Lucifer can be "the" antichrist.

To label people like George Bush, Barack Obama, and David hasselhoff with the name of "lucifer" really takes away from the "POWER" that it contains.

I am not saying that i believe you should not rebuke satan.
I believe you should, but not by making the term "antichrist" one that is fuzzy like like a carebear

new topics

top topics

log in