Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposition: There Is No Compelling Argument Against A Future Antichrist.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposition: There Is No Compelling Argument Against A Future Antichrist.

    John spoke of a singular and particular antichrist who was to yet come:

    1 John 2:18 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.

    He says "now" there were many antichrists but does specifically speak of one certain antichrist (singular) that was yet to come which means John believed he was a future Antichrist. This is known as "the Antichrist" which is a specific Antichrist among all those who are antichrists.

    John does not say how far into the future that this specific Antichrist would come but he did speak in the future tense.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  • #2
    Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
    John spoke of a singular and particular antichrist who was to yet come:

    1 John 2:18 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.

    He says "now" there were many antichrists but does specifically speak of one certain antichrist (singular) that was yet to come which means John believed he was a future Antichrist. This is known as "the Antichrist" which is a specific Antichrist among all those who are antichrists.

    John does not say how far into the future that this specific Antichrist would come but he did speak in the future tense.
    Let's settle the word "compelling" once for all. Scripture requires TWO or more witnesses to establish everything. You have ONE, and only by INSERTING "he". If "Antichrist" is a doctrine and or claim AGAINST Christ by a man or men, then your argument is moot, and so is the insertion of the "he".

    Evidence? YES. COMPELLING evidence? NO. Scripture asks for two witnesses to COMPEL.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Walls View Post

      Let's settle the word "compelling" once for all. Scripture requires TWO or more witnesses to establish everything.
      That's false. Many things that are true appear once in scripture such as the splitting of the Mt of Olives:


      Zec_14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.



      You have ONE, and only by INSERTING "he".
      There was no insertion. You don't even know what you are talking about:

      Inflected Word: ἀντίχριστος

      Root Form: ἀντίχριστος

      Code: N-NSM

      Long: Noun - Nominative Singular Masculine

      Speech: Noun

      Case: Nominative

      Number: Singular

      Gender: Masculine




      The word is masculine so the proper pronoun is "he".




      James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post

        That's false. Many things that are true appear once in scripture such as the splitting of the Mt of Olives:


        Zec_14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.





        There was no insertion. You don't even know what you are talking about:

        Inflected Word: ἀντίχριστος

        Root Form: ἀντίχριστος

        Code: N-NSM

        Long: Noun - Nominative Singular Masculine

        Speech: Noun

        Case: Nominative

        Number: Singular

        Gender: Masculine




        The word is masculine so the proper pronoun is "he".



        It is true that faithful scholars of the Bible do not need two statements to make a things true in God's Word. But the title is "NO COMPELLING ARGUMENT AGAINST a future ANTICHRIST". For this you MUST ASSUME that there is a future Antichrist, male, singular. It is like the Moon Landing. There is evidence that they did not land on the moon. Men must decide if it is "COMPELLING" or not. It is a weak argument to say; "There is no compelling evidence that they did NOT land on the moon." It assumes the subject under discussion as settled. But it is NOT.

        Our esteemed translators thought differently and left "he" out. I'll go with them.

        Why not make a small adjustment. Leave off the word "antichrist" and address "The Beast" - and then we can all go and brew a cup of tea.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Walls View Post
          For this you MUST ASSUME that there is a future Antichrist, male, singular.
          No assuming is needed. It's a scriptural fact that John spoke of a future Antichrist, male, singular.

          Our esteemed translators thought differently and left "he" out. I'll go with them.
          That isn't evidence of anything. The word is masculine so anyone can correctly refer to that certain Antichrist as a "he".



          Why not make a small adjustment. Leave off the word "antichrist" and address "The Beast" - and then we can all go and brew a cup of tea.
          That isn't good enough because there are two beasts in Rev 13.
          James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post

            No assuming is needed. It's a scriptural fact that John spoke of a future Antichrist, male, singular.



            That isn't evidence of anything. The word is masculine so anyone can correctly refer to that certain Antichrist as a "he".





            That isn't good enough because there are two beasts in Rev 13.
            Good. We've both stated our cases and the readers can judge. Go well brother.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
              John spoke of a singular and particular antichrist who was to yet come:

              1 John 2:18 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.

              He says "now" there were many antichrists but does specifically speak of one certain antichrist (singular) that was yet to come which means John believed he was a future Antichrist. This is known as "the Antichrist" which is a specific Antichrist among all those who are antichrists.

              John does not say how far into the future that this specific Antichrist would come but he did speak in the future tense.
              Reading the verse I don't see a compelling argument for A future antichrist. That antichrist shall come: "that" means, "Little children...ye have heard" therefore or because you have heard, as concerning that antichrist shall come...why would you think antichrist shall come since there are already many antichrists, and by this we know it is the last time.

              THAT

              3754. ὅτι hoti (hóti)
              Search for G3754 in KJVSL; in KJV; load in ESI.

              ὅτι hóti, hot'-ee

              neuter of G3748 as conjunction; demonstrative, that (sometimes redundant); causative, because:—as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though, why.

              conjunction

              John then tells us who these antichrists are. Men who were with us, but are not of us. So we don't have to look for A antichrist, for they are now and they are MANY.

              1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.



              Comment


              • #8
                I offered up what I believed to be "compelling evidence" for a future, endtimes Antichrist in the thread that denied such "compelling evidence" existed. It is simply rejected--not because the evidence doesn't exist, but rather because the evidence didn't convince *some people.* In other words, it wasn't compelling *to them.*

                So what is "compelling" to one may be compelling to others. It appears to be a subjective thing. I just believe that the evidence should be acknowledged one way or another, without determining what one believes. In other words, I can acknowledge a body of evidence on both sides of the issue. To determine what is "compelling" is determined by how I, as an individual, choose to embrace the evidence.

                So for me, the idea of a future, endtimes Antichrist exists as "compelling evidence" by looking at Dan 7, and the Little Horn. Not only does this appear to be an Anti-Messiah, but he is interpreted to be such in other related Scriptures in the Bible.

                For example, Paul looks at the Man of Sin. And John looks at the Anti-Christ. Finally, the book of Revelation addresses the Beast, who pursues worship from all men. Thought this is not compelling to some, it *is* evidence of what I choose to believe.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  I offered up what I believed to be "compelling evidence" for a future, endtimes Antichrist in the thread that denied such "compelling evidence" existed. It is simply rejected--not because the evidence doesn't exist, but rather because the evidence didn't convince *some people.* In other words, it wasn't compelling *to them.*

                  So what is "compelling" to one may be compelling to others. It appears to be a subjective thing. I just believe that the evidence should be acknowledged one way or another, without determining what one believes. In other words, I can acknowledge a body of evidence on both sides of the issue. To determine what is "compelling" is determined by how I, as an individual, choose to embrace the evidence.

                  So for me, the idea of a future, endtimes Antichrist exists as "compelling evidence" by looking at Dan 7, and the Little Horn. Not only does this appear to be an Anti-Messiah, but he is interpreted to be such in other related Scriptures in the Bible.

                  For example, Paul looks at the Man of Sin. And John looks at the Anti-Christ. Finally, the book of Revelation addresses the Beast, who pursues worship from all men. Thought this is not compelling to some, it *is* evidence of what I choose to believe.
                  Exactly. If you don't call him "Antichrist" then the matter is solved. But the thread you mention maintained that the single verse in 1st John was not compelling evidence of a future man who is called "Antichrist". Once you go looking for The Beast, the little horn, the man of sin, the son of perdition, etc. there is no dispute. I doubt of Dr. Boettner denied the existence of the Beast (I have not read him). All that happened was a storm in a teacup over the PRECISION which students of eschatology should apply to scripture to get their conclusions.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                    John spoke of a singular and particular antichrist who was to yet come:
                    1 John 2:18 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.

                    He says "now" there were many antichrists but does specifically speak of one certain antichrist (singular) that was yet to come which means John believed he was a future Antichrist. This is known as "the Antichrist" which is a specific Antichrist among all those who are antichrists.

                    John does not say how far into the future that this specific Antichrist would come but he did speak in the future tense.
                    After reading your post, using the KJV and Strong's Greek Dictionary, I looked up the words "shall some" in that verse, and found it's the Greek word erchomai.

                    I then checked to see where else that same word appears. I found that the word appears many times in the future tense, but also many times in the present tense:-

                    Mat 24:42
                    "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

                    Mat 24:44
                    "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."

                    Mat 25:6
                    "And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."

                    Rev 1:7
                    "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

                    Rev 1:8
                    ""I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

                    However, it's also found in the present tense, in verses such as these:

                    Mat 8:9
                    "For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

                    Mat 26:40
                    "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, "What, could ye not watch with me one hour?"

                    Mat 18:7
                    "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

                    What was interesting is that I've always noticed a future tense and past tense fulfillment in the Lord's statement:

                    Mat 17:11-12

                    "And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them."

                    The words "shall come" in the above verse are also translated from the same Greek word.

                    (When John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he said "No", and it was after seeing Elijah and Moses with the Lord on the Mount where He was transfigured that the disciples asked Him why the prophets say that Elijah must come first, and the above was the Lord's reply).

                    John said, "You have heard that anti-Christ cometh, but even now there are many.", and to make it clear to his readers, John explains what the spirit of anti-Christ declares concerning Christ:

                    1 John 2:22-23
                    "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He who denies the Father and the Son is anti-christ. Everyone who denies the Son neither has the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father."; and

                    1 John 4:3
                    "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the antichrist you heard is coming, and even now is already in the world."; and

                    2 John 1:7
                    "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."; and

                    1 John 2:18
                    "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."

                    It rules out neither the possibility that an anti-Christ is coming who will be THE anti-Christ, nor the possibility that "the anti-Christ" refers to the spirit of anti-Christ.

                    However, those who say that there is no compelling evidence that John's statements mean that there is a man coming who will be THE anti-Christ are deliberately (actively making an intellectual choice) to ignore the thesis-antithesis revelation of God given to us in the scriptures (which were inspired by Him), as well as the fact that we have been expressly and explicitly told that a man is coming who will seat himself in the temple of God, setting himself forth that he is God, and we are told about the beast to come which will be destroyed by Christ "opening his/its mouth in blasphemy toward God, to blaspheme His name, His Tabernacle, and those dwelling in heaven."

                    The thesis anti-thesis revelation of God in the scriptures they choose to ignore, include (among a numbers of others), the following:-

                    Beast ascends from the lowest place - the bottomless pit. Wars against the saints and overcomes them. Wars against the Lamb.
                    Christ descends from the highest place - the right hand of the throne of God in the Highest Heavens and defeats the beast and false prophet.
                    Beast exalts himself. Man of sin/son of perdition exalts himself and sets himself forth that he is God.
                    Christ is exalted by God and given a name which is above every name.
                    The man of sin and the beast receives his power from the dragon.
                    Christ is the power of God,

                    etc etc etc.

                    It's quite obvious that the final anti-Christ of many who came before him is THE anti-Christ, and will be all the characteristics of anti-Christ rolled into one man.

                    So you have to actively make an intellectual choice to ignore all the facts (deliberately choose not to interpret the Bible in light of the rest of the Bible) to deny that when John said, "As you have heard that anti-Christ cometh, even now there are many" he was talking about an anti-Christ to come, who John also called "the anti-Christ", while at the same time mentioning the fact that there were then (and still are) many anti-Christs in the world.

                    Where someone believes erroneous theology (for example regarding the millennium), then they are forced to be intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to force-fit into their theology scripture that contradicts their erroneous theology, and they will have to do so with many, many scriptures in the New Testament (such as the one being debated about here). They are unable to let the rules of common grammar interpret the passage.

                    If it is true what they say about "no compelling evidence" then John would simply have said,

                    "Many anti-Christs are in the world, and this is the antichrist:"

                    He would have no need to have said, "You have heard that anti-Christ is coming (but) even now, there are many".

                    Or he would have said, "You have heard that anti-Christs are coming. Even so, the are now many".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Walls View Post

                      Let's settle the word "compelling" once for all. Scripture requires TWO or more witnesses to establish everything. You have ONE, and only by INSERTING "he". If "Antichrist" is a doctrine and or claim AGAINST Christ by a man or men, then your argument is moot, and so is the insertion of the "he".

                      Evidence? YES. COMPELLING evidence? NO. Scripture asks for two witnesses to COMPEL.
                      2 Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

                      Seems pretty compelling to me
                      Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post

                        2 Th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

                        Seems pretty compelling to me
                        I'm confused. Where is the word "Antichrist" here? That is what we discuss. That there is a Beast, a "man of sin", a "son of perdition" is not disputed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Walls View Post

                          I'm confused. Where is the word "Antichrist" here? That is what we discuss. That there is a Beast, a "man of sin", a "son of perdition" is not disputed.
                          If John was only talking about many anti-Christs he would have said, "many anti-Christs are in the world. And this is the anti-Christ:" he would have had no need to have said, "You have heard that anti-Christ is coming (but) even now, there are many". Or he would have said, "You have heard that anti-Christs are coming"

                          Using the KJV and Strong's Greek Dictionary, I looked up the words "shall some" in that verse, and found it's the Greek word erchomai.

                          I then checked to see where else that same word appears. I found that the word appears many times in the future tense, but also many times in the present tense:-

                          Mat 24:42
                          "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come."

                          Mat 24:44
                          "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh."

                          Mat 25:6
                          "And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."

                          Rev 1:7
                          "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

                          Rev 1:8
                          ""I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

                          However, it's also found in the present tense, in verses such as these:

                          Mat 8:9
                          "For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

                          Mat 26:40
                          "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, "What, could ye not watch with me one hour?"

                          Mat 18:7
                          "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

                          John said, "You have heard that anti-Christ cometh, but even now there are many.", and to make it clear to his readers, John explains what the spirit of anti-Christ declares concerning Christ:

                          1 John 2:22-23
                          "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He who denies the Father and the Son is anti-christ. Everyone who denies the Son neither has the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father."; and

                          1 John 4:3
                          "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the antichrist you heard is coming, and even now is already in the world."; and

                          2 John 1:7
                          "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."; and

                          1 John 2:18
                          "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."

                          It rules out neither the possibility that an anti-Christ is coming who will be THE anti-Christ, nor the possibility that "the anti-Christ" refers to the spirit of anti-Christ.

                          However:-

                          1) If it is true what they say about "no compelling evidence" then John would simply have said,

                          "Many anti-Christs are in the world, and this is the antichrist:"

                          Or he would have said, "You have heard that anti-Christs are coming. Even so, the are now many".

                          He would have no need to have said, "You have heard that anti-Christ is coming (but) even now, there are many".

                          2) Those who say that there is no compelling evidence that John's statements mean that there is a man coming who will be THE anti-Christ are deliberately (actively making an intellectual choice) choosing to ignore the thesis-antithesis revelation of God given to us in the scriptures (which were inspired by Him), as well as the fact that we have been expressly and explicitly told that a man is coming who will seat himself in the temple of God, setting himself forth that he is God, and we are told about the beast to come which will be destroyed by Christ "opening his/its mouth in blasphemy toward God, to blaspheme His name, His Tabernacle, and those dwelling in heaven."

                          The thesis anti-thesis revelation of God in the scriptures they choose to ignore, include (among a number of others), the following:-

                          Beast ascends from the lowest place - the bottomless pit. Wars against the saints and overcomes them. Wars against the Lamb.
                          Christ descends from the highest place - the right hand of the throne of God in the Highest Heavens and defeats the beast and false prophet.
                          Beast exalts himself. Man of sin/son of perdition exalts himself and sets himself forth that he is God.
                          Christ is exalted by God and given a name which is above every name.
                          The man of sin and the beast receives his power from the dragon.
                          Christ is the power of God,

                          etc etc etc.

                          It's quite obvious that the final anti-Christ of many who came before him is THE anti-Christ, and will be all the characteristics of anti-Christ rolled into one man.

                          So any saint needs to actively make an intellectual choice to ignore all the facts (i.e deliberately choose not to interpret the Bible in light of the rest of the Bible) to deny that when John said, "As you have heard that anti-Christ cometh, even now there are many" he was talking about an anti-Christ to come, who John also called "the anti-Christ", while at the same time mentioning the fact that there were then (and still are) many anti-Christs in the world.

                          Where someone believes erroneous theology (for example regarding the millennium), then they are forced to be intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to force-fit into their theology scripture that contradicts their erroneous theology, and they will have to do so with many, many scriptures in the New Testament (such as the one being debated about here). They are unable to let the rules of common grammar interpret the passage - John did not say, "You have heard that anti-Christs are coming". He said, "You have heard that anti-Christ is coming".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by m'lo goy View Post

                            If John was only talking about many anti-Christs he would have said, "many anti-Christs are in the world. And this is the anti-Christ:" he would have had no need to have said, "You have heard that anti-Christ is coming (but) even now, there are many"
                            WE have a term "Antichrist". Let scripture define it.

                            1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."


                            1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."


                            2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

                            If we stick to scripture, and not add or subtract using our own thoughts and opinions, the term "Antichrist" depicts;
                            1. One who denies that Jesus is the Christ
                            2. One who denies the Father and Son
                            3. One who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
                            4. One who deceives other men with these denials
                            5. One who has a spirit who denies these things
                            6. An angel who denies these things (for angels are spirits)
                            7. A demon who denies these things (for demons are spirits)
                            Now, without adding or subtracting, where in this spectrum is, "One who is resurrected from the dead to become a Roman universal all-powerful world king?"

                            And is it not true that far from denying the Father and Son, this universal king claims to be them? See Matthew 24:23-26 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:4. If so, the term for the Beast is a "FALSE CHRIST", not an "Antichrist" One claims to be Him. The other DENIES Him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Walls View Post
                              [/LIST]Now, without adding or subtracting, where in this spectrum is, "One who is resurrected from the dead to become a Roman universal all-powerful world king?"
                              I don't know because I've never said that or written that in any post. You wrote it, so you will have to answer your own question.

                              PS: I don't believe the N.T and Revelation talks about a human rising from the dead claiming to be Christ. 2 Thess 2 does not tell us the man of sin claims to be Christ - it tells us "he will exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth that he is God." That's the spirit of anti-Christ - denying God the Father and God the son.

                              So why did YOU add and subtract?

                              Originally posted by Walls View Post
                              And is it not true that far from denying the Father and Son, this universal king claims to be them?
                              It does not say he does not deny the Father and the Son. Exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped does not imply not denying the Father and the Son, neither does the words, "..opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His Tabernacle, and those dwelling in heaven".

                              "A deadly wound" to the head of the beast being healed" does not imply a resurrected human. It implies the resurgence of a fallen kingdom. It's king will exalt himself above all that is called God. To say that THAT is not a denial of God the Father and God the Son, is to deliberately choose to add and subtract from the scriptures.

                              Originally posted by Walls View Post
                              See Matthew 24:23-26 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:4. If so, the term for the Beast is a "FALSE CHRIST", not an "Antichrist" One claims to be Him. The other DENIES Him.
                              Mat 24:23-25
                              Then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ! Or, There! Do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect. Behold, I have told you beforehand.

                              So you're subtracting from scripture again, claiming that the Lord said, "A false Christ and a false prophet shall arise in the days of the Great Tribulation"

                              The Lord Jesus Christ is quite obviously and quite clearly not talking about a man in Mat 24:23-24 (as Paul does when speaking about the man of sin in 2 Thess 2) - He's talking about many.

                              The words are both in the plural, unless you actively make an intellectual choice to ignore this fact, and change the meaning to be referring to a man.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X