Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 395

Thread: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    153

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Semantics and repetition have resulted in equating the man of sin to the antichrist. I made this discourse without referring to either one as "THE antichrist". Technically speaking, they are both against Christ. But if only one can be "the" antichrist, it is the beast from the sea. But the false prophet IS the man of sin, and is also an antichrist. Don't let the "time oriented" understanding of 2 Thess 2 determine who the real man of sin is. Doctrinal exposition of 2 Thess 2 will interfere with understanding. That principal point that will interfere is this:
    Standing in the temple IS the abomination of desolation. Accepting that the man of sin is the false prophet, means that you have to throw off that belief completely. Something that I know few will be willing to do, because of their "doctrinal expositions" will be thrown into chaos.
    Blessings
    The PuP

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Semantics and repetition have resulted in equating the man of sin to the antichrist. I made this discourse without referring to either one as "THE antichrist". Technically speaking, they are both against Christ. But if only one van be "the" antichrist, it odds the beast from the sea. But the false prophet IS the man of sin, and is also an antichrist. Don't let the "time oriented" understanding GB of 2 Thess 2 determine who the real man of sin is. Doctrinal exposition of 2 Thess 2 will interfere with understanding. That principal point that will interfere is this:
    Standing in the temple IS the abomination of desolation. Accepting that the man of sin is the false prophet, means that you have to throw off that belief completely. Something that I know few will be willing to do, because of their "doctrinal expositions" will be thrown into chaos.
    Blessings
    The PuP
    I throw it out as 2 Thess 2:3 & 4 explicitly connect the Man of Sin with the one who sits in the temple AND who proclaims himself as god.
    The False Prophet does NOT proclaim himself as god. Instead he directs worship towards the one who has declared himself as such.
    It is when people do not worship THAT man that they then may be killed.
    Rev 13:4 - 8 makes this clear also, BEFORE we see the role of the FP.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    153

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I throw it out as 2 Thess 2:3 & 4 explicitly connect the Man of Sin with the one who sits in the temple AND who proclaims himself as god.
    The False Prophet does NOT proclaim himself as god. Instead he directs worship towards the one who has declared himself as such.
    It is when people do not worship THAT man that they then may be killed.
    Rev 13:4 - 8 makes this clear also, BEFORE we see the role of the FP.
    Again, the man of sin is the one who sits in the temple who IS the false prophet, but is not the beast from the sea. Another mistaken fallacy:
    He does not claim to be God. He shows or proves to himself, that he is God. You will find the "prince" who "sits in the temple" that is reserved only for the Lord, in Eze. 44.

    *[[Eze 44:2]] KJV* Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
    Eze 44:3: It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Again, the man of sin is the one who sits in the temple who IS the false prophet, but is not the beast from the sea. Another mistaken fallacy:
    He does not claim to be God. He shows or proves to himself, that he is God. You will find the "prince" who "sits in the temple" that is reserved only for the Lord, in Eze. 44.
    I am not sure what Bible you are using:
    2Th 2:4* who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

    If he proclaims himself to be god, then this is something he is claiming.
    In Rev 13 the FP's role is DIFFERENT to that of the 1st beast:
    Rev 13:12* It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed.

    The FP directs people to worship the 1st beast. IOW the FP is saying, worship this one who is god. So in this instance the FP is NOT saying that himself is god, but that the other is.
    The Man of Sin is the one who proclaims himself, THEREFORE the Man of Sin is the 1st beast.
    Now the question therefore is who is the AC?
    Is there anything which specifically identifies a person as the AC?
    The spirit of the antichrist is clearly in BOTH the 1st beast and the FP.
    However as it is the 1st beast who has a wound on its head, and that the mark is in the name of the 1st beast, and especially as the FP gets his authority from the 1st beast, so clearly the 1st beast is the AC.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    153

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am not sure what Bible you are using:
    2Th 2:4* who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

    If he proclaims himself to be god, then this is something he is claiming.
    In Rev 13 the FP's role is DIFFERENT to that of the 1st beast:
    Rev 13:12* It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed.

    The FP directs people to worship the 1st beast. IOW the FP is saying, worship this one who is god. So in this instance the FP is NOT saying that himself is god, but that the other is.
    The Man of Sin is the one who proclaims himself, THEREFORE the Man of Sin is the 1st beast.
    Now the question therefore is who is the AC?
    Is there anything which specifically identifies a person as the AC?
    The spirit of the antichrist is clearly in BOTH the 1st beast and the FP.
    However as it is the 1st beast who has a wound on its head, and that the mark is in the name of the 1st beast, and especially as the FP gets his authority from the 1st beast, so clearly the 1st beast is the AC.
    Again, another taken for granted fallacy. It does not say that he got his authority FROM the beast or the dragon. It says that he has the same authority as the first beast. That is the people and/ or the realm of his dominion. He rules over the same people. We can get to the bottom of this if you want. Is the strong delusion, the objective fraudence, of 2 Thess 2, the dame as the mark of the beast
    If not , discussion over. If yes, there it said that God is the ons who sends the strong delusion, therefore, we know where he gets his authority/ power.
    By the way, Kjv (et al) says:

    *[[2Th 2:4]] KJV* 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.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] BBE* Who puts himself against all authority, lifting himself up over all which is named God or is given worship; so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, putting himself forward as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] NET* He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] NHEB* he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] WEB* he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.

    4 examples where it does not say that "he says..."
    Translational variance.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,536

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually no.
    1) You are saying there is THIS tradition which was once taught, therefore due to it having historically been stated, so it has more value than something which I can not find having been historically stated. IOW you are placing a TRADITIONAL or HISTORICAL view as triumphing over scripture itself.
    No! A traditional understanding that is based on Scriptural interpretation is not like the Catholic Tradition, which sees Mary as the "Queen of Heaven!" Yes, Scriptural Interpretation has a Tradition. And this makes it more credible than later schools of interpretation that have no depth of tradition. That would make the Holy Spirit appear to have been a failure!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    2) It does accurately reflect your view as can be seen in multiple posts of yours. You claim an army which is OUTSIDE a city is somehow INSIDE the Holy place, which is INSIDE the city, which the army is OUTSIDE of. You also claim ALL does not mean ALL, but only part.
    It does NOT matter how large a circle you draw. Everything may be INSIDE the circle but NOT everything INSIDE the large circle is INSIDE a smaller circle. This is a FALLACY in your reasoning.
    What you are trying to do is ENLARGE the Holy place from being INSIDE a certain space to being OUTSIDE that place and stretching it until you have what was OUTSIDE now INSIDE that enlarged circle. So you are changing the definition of what INSIDE means, by placing things OUTSIDE as IN.
    I understand fully your argument, and your concerns, but I still do not agree. If the "Holy Place" is used not just as a reference to the temple, but more, to a general location of the temple, then certainly the Roman Army entering in to a position of besieging Jerusalem qualifies as being "in the Holy Place!"

    After all, this is precisely what Jesus said in Luke 21, that the Roman Army (presumably) would encircle Jerusalem, thus entering "into the Holy Place." We do think of the "Holy Place" as the temple, both because that is what it was under the Law, and also because Antiochus 4 set the precedent for attacking it.

    However, Jesus' view of the "Holy Place" had changed dramatically. The entirety of Jerusalem, along with its priests, had been corrupted, and it was, in fact, no longer operated by a "Holy People." They were "holy" in name only. So, this coming destruction was going to be an encirclement of the holy city of Jerusalem--that's just what Jesus literally said. This would constitute an entry "into the Holy Place," beginning with a siege in 66 AD, and ending with actual entry into the temple area, destroying it. This is simple historical fact!

    Again, I understand your argument. It just doesn't fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It isn't a question of convenience. It is a question of HOW the phrase is used throughout scripture.
    I am taking what is used over and over, which references INSIDE the temple area, and applying it as stated.
    You instead find that your view is NOT supported by the ACTUAL meaning of the text, nor how it is used throughout scripture and so CONVENIENTLY change the meaning to something which will then allow your preconceived idea fit.
    Sorry, but doing such a thing is dishonest.
    No, I'm being completely honest. I believe all versions of the Olivet Discourse are the same, line up, and say the same thing, including identification of the AoD with the Roman Army, which enters into the Holy Place, destroying it. I don't believe you're being dishonest about this--I just think you're creating a problem that really isn't a problem. Certainly, there have been issues over this in the Early Church, because different interpretations of the AoD have emerged, including those who believe the AoD was somehow associated with the Roman Army.

    Was the AoD a Roman abuse of the temple tax, the Roman eagle standard, or was it the contaminating influence of the Roman Army itself? Was it the political control of Jerusalem, now as an invading Army? Was it the penetration of the gate surrounding the temple area?

    So yes, there are some questions about this. But obviously, there is a tradition of seeing the AoD as the Roman Army. They were not "dishonest," and neither am I!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am COMPLETELY flexible, IF you present ANY evidence which actually shows these things not to be correct. However I am not so flexible that I will say, yes you are right, when you are not.
    I had someone question the timing of Ezra and Nehemiah. I had ALWAYS assumed Ezra and Nehemiah were at one point in time in Jerusalem together.
    Yet my view is flexible enough to consider something novel.
    You are the one who refuses novel things, arguing that because it is novel it is wrong.
    My view is that if it is novel then it needs careful thought and challenge.
    So I am the one who is FAR MORE flexible.
    I am stubborn over what is certain and flexible on what is up for clarification.
    Sure you are--you're stubborn like a heavy brick. It moves a little, and then claims it is flexible! But thanks for even the tiniest willingness to change.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,170
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Semantics and repetition have resulted in equating the man of sin to the antichrist.
    The beast from the sea is not a man but ten kingdoms spanning 7 mountains...the AC is a man so he must be the only beast which is a man, the false prophet.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Again, another taken for granted fallacy. It does not say that he got his authority FROM the beast or the dragon. It says that he has the same authority as the first beast. That is the people and/ or the realm of his dominion. He rules over the same people. We can get to the bottom of this if you want. Is the strong delusion, the objective fraudence, of 2 Thess 2, the dame as the mark of the beast
    If not , discussion over. If yes, there it said that God is the ons who sends the strong delusion, therefore, we know where he gets his authority/ power.
    By the way, Kjv (et al) says:

    *[[2Th 2:4]] KJV* 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.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] BBE* Who puts himself against all authority, lifting himself up over all which is named God or is given worship; so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, putting himself forward as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] NET* He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] NHEB* he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.
    *[[2Th 2:4]] WEB* he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.

    4 examples where it does not say that "he says..."
    Translational variance.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Sortry, but ALL 4 versions state the SAME thing, the one who sits in the throne shows, displays or proclaims himself as god. That neans he is not saying someone else is god, but that he himself is god. This is NOT what the FP does. Therefore it is NOT the FP. This is very simple, and simply stated.

    Actually the picture shown in Rev 213 is the dragon, who gives authority to the 1st beast who gives authority to the 2nd.
    It does NOT say the FP has the SAME authority, but that it exercise the 1st beast's authority.
    It is the same as when Joseph was made in charge by Pharaoh. Joseph was NOT Pharaoh, but he had the authority of Pharaoh and exercised it, as if he were Pharaoh.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,170
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Sortry, but ALL 4 versions state the SAME thing, the one who sits in the throne shows, displays or proclaims himself as god. That neans he is not saying someone else is god, but that he himself is god. This is NOT what the FP does. Therefore it is NOT the FP. This is very simple, and simply stated.
    Even more simple is no where in Rev does anyone say "I am God". That isn't found in Rev so we have to deduce who matches the one who does say that and that is the false prophet, the leader of the beast from the sea. There is no other prominent single person mentioned in Rev. He is the same one called the little horn, that rises up and rules over the 4th beast, the same beast from the sea in Rev. I understand you think the worshiping must mean someone claimed to be God but that isn't the case., Plus it says they worship the dragon as well and no one thinks Satan will just openly say he is Satan and then be worshiped. They worship the ten kingdom 7 mountain government because of how powerful it will be, and thereby worship Satan indirectly because he created this government and then the FP will be it's leader exercising all of it's power, and performing miracles to deceive exactly what Christ said about antichrists, and that means it is the AC that will perform miracles and that's what the FP does. No matter how one slices this, the false prophet is the Antichrist John and Jesus spoke about.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    153

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    The beast from the sea is not a man but ten kingdoms spanning 7 mountains...the AC is a man so he must be the only beast which is a man, the false prophet.
    Sorry, there are no kingdom's that can be cast alive into the bottomless pit. The kingdom of the 10 horns, is defeated at the time of the desolation of Jerusalem at the time of the great tribulation. He is resurrected after his death and given authority to Continue for another 42 months. A beast is clearly a king (granted of a kingdom) but is not the kingdom.

    *[[Dan 7:17]] KJV* These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

    In your understanding, maybe you see them as kingdoms, but i don't.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No! A traditional understanding that is based on Scriptural interpretation is not like the Catholic Tradition, which sees Mary as the "Queen of Heaven!" Yes, Scriptural Interpretation has a Tradition. And this makes it more credible than later schools of interpretation that have no depth of tradition. That would make the Holy Spirit appear to have been a failure!
    ANY stance which says ANY tradition of Man is above scripture is wrong. This is simple and clear.
    Your view is that because it is a tradition, so it is can be allowed to be correct, but if that tradition doesn't exist then it can't be correct.
    How long did it take for the church to go against slavery? The TRUTH is that scripture is more than tradition, and tradition is to be a help but not a be all.

    I understand fully your argument, and your concerns, but I still do not agree. If the "Holy Place" is used not just as a reference to the temple, but more, to a general location of the temple, then certainly the Roman Army entering in to a position of besieging Jerusalem qualifies as being "in the Holy Place!"

    After all, this is precisely what Jesus said in Luke 21, that the Roman Army (presumably) would encircle Jerusalem, thus entering "into the Holy Place." We do think of the "Holy Place" as the temple, both because that is what it was under the Law, and also because Antiochus 4 set the precedent for attacking it.

    However, Jesus' view of the "Holy Place" had changed dramatically. The entirety of Jerusalem, along with its priests, had been corrupted, and it was, in fact, no longer operated by a "Holy People." They were "holy" in name only. So, this coming destruction was going to be an encirclement of the holy city of Jerusalem--that's just what Jesus literally said. This would constitute an entry "into the Holy Place," beginning with a siege in 66 AD, and ending with actual entry into the temple area, destroying it. This is simple historical fact!

    Again, I understand your argument. It just doesn't fit.
    You obviously do NOT understand as you are STILL claiming the same kindergarten nonsense.
    If we draw a circle, like a target - the Holy of holies is the center black (bull's eye). The Holy place is the circle around it. The Temple is around that, the city of Jerusalem is around that and the holy Land is around that. You are claiming that because the Roman Army is inside the first circle that this is the SAME as being INSIDE the center circle, and just outside the bull's eye.
    Absolutely everyone can see this is nonsense.

    Now you next appeal to circular reasoning by saying, because Jesus said a Roman Army encircles Jerusalem so this is the SAME as being inside the Holy place. Yet this can ONLY be so, IF the TWO are actually the SAME.
    As they are NOT so your circular reasoning is shown WRONG.
    So then you appeal to the bizarre idea that Jesus' view somehow changes and that now it is the entirety of Jerusalem and its priests.
    The problems with this is even if you are right it doesn't resolve your issue. As being OUTSIDE Jerusalem is NOT the same as being INSIDE Jerusalem.
    Further as Jesus states it IS the Holy place, then for you or anyone to say it is NOT holy means you are disagreeing with Jesus' clear statement.
    Encircling somewhere does NOT EVER constitute entering it AT THE SAME TIME.


    No, I'm being completely honest. I believe all versions of the Olivet Discourse are the same, line up, and say the same thing, including identification of the AoD with the Roman Army, which enters into the Holy Place, destroying it. I don't believe you're being dishonest about this--I just think you're creating a problem that really isn't a problem. Certainly, there have been issues over this in the Early Church, because different interpretations of the AoD have emerged, including those who believe the AoD was somehow associated with the Roman Army.

    Was the AoD a Roman abuse of the temple tax, the Roman eagle standard, or was it the contaminating influence of the Roman Army itself? Was it the political control of Jerusalem, now as an invading Army? Was it the penetration of the gate surrounding the temple area?

    So yes, there is some questions about this. But obviously, there is a tradition of seeing the AoD as the Roman Army. They were not "dishonest," and neither am I!
    There is NO tradition of the Roman Army being the AoD. There is an idea that the Roman army caused the AoD. This is a later ECF who speaks of an actual AoD AFTER the temple is destroyed, which is then too late to be the SIGN to flee.
    I don't doubt your honesty, I am just highlighting the REALITY that you put your BIAS, and EISEGESIS before what is stated.
    As the versions do line up so I agree with you, they just are NOT lining up in the way you are claiming.


    Sure you are--you're stubborn like a heavy brick. It moves a little, and then claims it is flexible! But thanks for even the tiniest willingness to change.
    I am very stubborn about things which are clear. OUTSIDE is NOT INSIDE. There is no way you can convince me otherwise. Your nebulous ideas of Roman Tax, Eagle Standard or influence are ALL demonstrably wrong, as they were true throughout ALL of Jesus' life. They had there fort right outside the temple, yet Jesus did NOT say, when you see the Roman eagle or any other such thing.
    I am willing to change on things that can be changed, but will never say that tradition of any kind is above scripture, nor that any interpretation that requires changing the meaning of words to ways in which they are not used, means I am consistent in my approach to scripture and its interpretation. I simply find it sad how much you willingly blind yourself to truth because you have a priori decided what that truth is going to be.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Even more simple is no where in Rev does anyone say "I am God". That isn't found in Rev so we have to deduce who matches the one who does say that and that is the false prophet, the leader of the beast from the sea. There is no other prominent single person mentioned in Rev. He is the same one called the little horn, that rises up and rules over the 4th beast, the same beast from the sea in Rev. I understand you think the worshiping must mean someone claimed to be God but that isn't the case., Plus it says they worship the dragon as well and no one thinks Satan will just openly say he is Satan and then be worshiped. They worship the ten kingdom 7 mountain government because of how powerful it will be, and thereby worship Satan indirectly because he created this government and then the FP will be it's leader exercising all of it's power, and performing miracles to deceive exactly what Christ said about antichrists, and that means it is the AC that will perform miracles and that's what the FP does. No matter how one slices this, the false prophet is the Antichrist John and Jesus spoke about.
    Rev 13:4* And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”*
    Rev 13:5* And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.*
    Rev 13:6* It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven.*
    Rev 13:7* Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,*
    Rev 13:8* and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

    A little disingenous to say no one says "I am god..." when the 1st beast is worshipped. Further we have the same statement as made i Daniel 7's little horn. It is blaspheming. What is blasphemy? To claim to be god! This is the charge they brought against Jesus.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    153

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Sortry, but ALL 4 versions state the SAME thing, the one who sits in the throne shows, displays or proclaims himself as god. That neans he is not saying someone else is god, but that he himself is god. This is NOT what the FP does. Therefore it is NOT the FP. This is very simple, and simply stated.

    Actually the picture shown in Rev 213 is the dragon, who gives authority to the 1st beast who gives authority to the 2nd.
    It does NOT say the FP has the SAME authority, but that it exercise the 1st beast's authority.
    It is the same as when Joseph was made in charge by Pharaoh. Joseph was NOT Pharaoh, but he had the authority of Pharaoh and exercised it, as if he were Pharaoh.
    I'll ask it again. Is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2 the same as the mark of the beast? Besides that, you can't find where either the beast or the FP claims/ speaks that he is God. Therefore you have no support for your claim. Paul told us how to identify the man of sin. If, claiming he was God was the marker, and the fact that we have 2 "antichrist" figures in Revelation, John would have confirmed that identifier. He does. It's just not what you say that it is. If you are going to agree that the mark is the strong delusion, then, there should be no question about who is the man of sin. The evidence is clearly pointing to the FP. Show me anywhere in Rev. That the beast is a sign and wonders man. You might have a point IF it had said this of him as well. (Signs & wonders) But he didn't. And you don't.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6,477
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    One hears a lot of things and doesn't know what's considered true and what isn't.

    So teach me.
    "Anti-Christ" is any spirit which denies Jesus. Some people go way further with it, though.

    By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and is already in the world at this time. You, little children, are from God and have overcome them, because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:2-4)
    여러분은 주님 안에서 항상 기뻐하십시오. 내가 다시 말합니다. 기뻐하십시오.
    모든 사람을 너그럽게 대하십시오. 주님께서 오실 날이 가까웠습니다. Philippians 4


  15. #165

    Re: So who's this Anti-Christ character?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    I'll ask it again. Is the strong delusion of 2 Thess 2 the same as the mark of the beast? Besides that, you can't find where either the beast or the FP claims/ speaks that he is God. Therefore you have no support for your claim. Paul told us how to identify the man of sin. If, claiming he was God was the marker, and the fact that we have 2 "antichrist" figures in Revelation, John would have confirmed that identifier. He does. It's just not what you say that it is. If you are going to agree that the mark is the strong delusion, then, there should be no question about who is the man of sin. The evidence is clearly pointing to the FP. Show me anywhere in Rev. That the beast is a sign and wonders man. You might have a point IF it had said this of him as well. (Signs & wonders) But he didn't. And you don't.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Hm. The way I understand it is that the first beast (where it says "was given unto him a mouth speaking...") is the man of sin (2Th2), the one where also Dan7:20-21 says "whose look is more stout than his fellows" (i.e. an individual), the "whose COMING/advent/arrival/presence" (2Th2:9a) is the same as the "prince THAT SHALL COME" doing the "for ONE WEEK [7-yr]" thing (Dan9:27a[26]), which is the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" (1Th5:2-3) OF "the beginning of birth PANGS [plural]," which is the equivalent to the SEALS (Seal #1 in particular, Rev6:2) the rider of the white horse, with a crown and a bow (at the START of the "DOTL"/trib aspect)... So in Matt24:4 and Mark13:5 I believe is a singular individual (the one I've been referring to, in the above ^ )

    ... but later in the passages (still early) it shows, in Matt24:11,24 and Mark13:22 (if I'm recalling the verses correctly), plural individuals doing the "shew[-ing of ]great/signs and wonders"...and further "deceiving"... What say you?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nehemiah's character a striking resemblance of Christ?
    By breadfirst in forum Bible Study
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec 18th 2017, 12:44 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Nov 25th 2011, 08:38 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Oct 18th 2011, 01:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •