The Pope as the Antichrist

[Tambora]

Yes, and...?

I was posting about the so-called "Pope" of Rome, not about the apostle Peter.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[CrowCross]

Why was that figured?

It was your use of "stipulated criteria".

 

[David1701]

I was agreeing with you.

You were? Okay, thanks.

 

[atpollard]

I had a hard time finding "THE ANTICHRIST" in scripture. Lots of references to "antichrists" (little "a"), but when looking for ONE BEING, you encounter "The Man of Lawlessness" (which makes me wonder why people embrace a TITLE that scripture does not use and ignore the title that scripture does use) ... and then you get crazy visions in Revelation that people like to pick and choose between Literal and Symbolic with no rhyme or reason except it fits their preconceived chart.

 

[Mr GLee]

I don't recall Peter ever referring to himself as a Pontifex Maximus "god-man", nor any of the people of his time referring to Peter as a "god-man".
I believe Peter would have been appalled if anyone did.

I would offer.

God is eternal Spirit .He is not a dying mankind as us

Peter is reckoned as our brother in the Lord and not as some say our Holy Father, Holy See ,Our vicar Christ , the chief apostle, prince of Rome , Our Holiness etc .

In Mathew 16 Peter rebuked Christ the unseen head and forbid the Son of man Jesus from doing the will of the Father . In that way he Pope is identified as a daysman

Job 9:32-34 GOD’S WORD Translation A human like me cannot answer God,‘ Let’s take our case to court.’ There is no mediator between us to put his hand (will) on both of us.

 

[Josheb]

It was your use of "stipulated criteria".

And where would the "the revived roman empire...must be such and such nationality etc." be stipulated in scripture or Post 2 (or Post 4)?

 

[Josheb]

It was your use of "stipulated criteria".

And where would the "the revived roman empire...must be such and such nationality etc." be stipulated in scripture or Post 2??

He is against Christ as is plain to see in the history of the church of Rome, and does all that was prophesied, so is the Antichrist given..

Scripture says otherwise.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I don't recall Peter ever referring to himself as a Pontifex Maximus "god-man", nor any of the people of his time referring to Peter as a "god-man".
I believe Peter would have been appalled if anyone did.

and he wouldn't ....

Lk 22:24-27 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He [Christ] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.

 

[David1701]

I had a hard time finding "THE ANTICHRIST" in scripture. Lots of references to "antichrists" (little "a"), but when looking for ONE BEING, you encounter "The Man of Lawlessness" (which makes me wonder why people embrace a TITLE that scripture does not use and ignore the title that scripture does use) ... and then you get crazy visions in Revelation that people like to pick and choose between Literal and Symbolic with no rhyme or reason except it fits their preconceived chart.

There are several titles (man of lawlessness, little horn (from Daniel), son of perdition). Anti-Christ is used most, because it is so descriptive of his character (in place of and against Christ).

 

[CrowCross]

And where would the "the revived roman empire...must be such and such nationality etc." be stipulated in scripture or Post 2??

I'm not saying you're wrong...or right. I was wondering if you had a list that the antichrist hat to meet ignorer to be the antichrist.

Some people think he could be Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. Considering his work with Jarred Kushner on the latest peace accord with Israel.

How does criteria fit in? Some say he has to be a prince. When his father dies he will become king...which would disqualify him... as Prince Moe would no longer be a prince.

Then again, what if prince means "ruler"? As in over a principality then being a King might still work.

 

[atpollard]

and he wouldn't ....

Lk 22:24-27 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He [Christ] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.

... but the later Bishops of Rome behave EXACTLY like the "kings of the Gentiles" rather than a "servant".

A more appropriate verse for a leader that orders the Catholic Church protected while hiding evil and punishing lesser bishops that expose evil might be: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me." - Matthew 15:8 [NKJV] [Mat 15:8 NKJV]

 

[CrowCross]

There are several titles (man of lawlessness, little horn (from Daniel), son of perdition). Anti-Christ is used most, because it is so descriptive of his character (in place of and against Christ).

Is that how the antichrist will first appear...or what he will become?

 

[Josheb]

I'm not saying you're wrong...or right. I was wondering if you had a list that the antichrist hat to meet ignorer to be the antichrist. Some people think he could be Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. Considering his work with Jarred Kushner on the latest peace accord with Israel. How does criteria fit in? Some say he has to be a prince. When his father dies he will become king...which would disqualify him... as Prince Moe would no longer be a prince. Then again, what if prince means "ruler"? As in over a principality then being a King might still work.

John was not writing to empower rank speculation. That is a product of modern futurism, not scripture.

 

[Josheb]

I had a hard time finding "THE ANTICHRIST" in scripture. Lots of references to "antichrists" (little "a"), but when looking for ONE BEING, you encounter "The Man of Lawlessness" (which makes me wonder why people embrace a TITLE that scripture does not use and ignore the title that scripture does use) ... and then you get crazy visions in Revelation that people like to pick and choose between Literal and Symbolic with no rhyme or reason except it fits their preconceived chart.

There are several titles (man of lawlessness, little horn (from Daniel), son of perdition). Anti-Christ is used most, because it is so descriptive of his character (in place of and against Christ).

That is, assuming the MoL and AC are the same person. I find nothing in scripture explicitly stating that is the case.

 

[Arch Stanton]

... but the later Bishops of Rome behave EXACTLY like the "kings of the Gentiles" rather than a "servant".

What you got on Linus, Clement?

 

[atpollard]

There are several titles (man of lawlessness, little horn (from Daniel), son of perdition). Anti-Christ is used most, because it is so descriptive of his character (in place of and against Christ).

• "Man of Lawlessness" is clearly a Title for a Person (whoever he is)
• "Little Horn" is too symbolic for my over-literal tendencies to comfortably draw any conclusion about. In MYTHBUSTER terms, ["Plausible"] that it might be a person, but maybe not.
• "son of perdition" ... I always thought of Judas when I heard that phrase. A BIBLE search turns up 2 Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 [NKJV]
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Reading that THEN (as a First Century believer holding a letter from Paul), I would probably have pictured a Roman Emperor with their claim to be gods, standing in the Temple in Jerusalem demanding worship or death (as was happening during the persecution).

I can see how the Revelation Literal Kingdom crowd could see that as ONE future person to appear as THE Anti-Christ. That still seems a stretch of the original hearers context and the symbolic nature of so much of Revelation.

I have to admit that I viewed the Reformation interpretation of POPE as Anti-Christ to be just the fiery rhetoric of the day ... typical of how they wrote. Looking hard at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, I think the POPE as ANTI-CHRIST actually has some scriptural merit. The Pope is the spiritual successor to the Roman Emperor claiming "god on earth" status and has an equal history of executing any that refuse to worship that authority. I would still lean away from a single individual interpretation and towards the OFFICE of BISHOP OF ROME, POPE, HOLY FATHER as the "son of perdition" that Paul warned about [and perhaps the "little horn" of Daniel]. Think about the harm Rome has done to the Word. Think of those lead astray as the "falling away".

How many years was God silent from the last OT Prophet until the coming of Jesus?
Why would God suddenly become squeamish to fulfill prophecies and still keep His people waiting while He had more that He wanted to set in place?

I think the verses about "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." and "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." mean what they say.

 

[CrowCross]

I can see how the Revelation Literal Kingdom crowd could see that as ONE future person to appear as THE Anti-Christ. That still seems a stretch of the original hearers context and the symbolic nature of so much of Revelation.

When one looks at current events....world wide....it most certainly does look like we are heading towards a one world order in all aspects. Rev 13 is on its way.

 

[atpollard]

What you got on Linus, Clement?

Less than I have on Julius Ceaser ... but I don't venerate his writings either ... or claim some infallible blessing of Christ on Earth passed through his touch. What can you PROVE to me using original sources, verified by scholars, about Linus and Clement?

Did they exist?
Did their writings survive?
Did they believe heresies contrary to Apostolic teaching (like so many ECFs)?

I know ... Church Tradition ... that secret body of knowledge that tells us wives don't sleep with their husbands (ever) and "brothers" are not really "brothers" because Husbands have mysterious "other wives" ... and when Jesus says "today", He really meant "after a thousand hears of torment in Purgatory" - which Jesus neglected to mention ANYWHERE in his preaching.

Luther probably had a valid point. We or YOU really are ANATHEMA (and it comes down to whether the POPE or SCRIPTURE has been lying to us.)

 

[atpollard]

When one looks at current events....world wide....it most certainly does look like we are heading towards a one world order in all aspects. Rev 13 is on its way.

Last time the WORLD tried that ... God created Israel.

Isaiah 45:7 [NIV] I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Less than I have on Julius Ceaser ... but I don't venerate his writings either ... or claim some infallible blessing of Christ on Earth passed through his touch. What can you PROVE to me using original sources, verified by scholars, about Linus and Clement?

Did they exist?

Augustine​

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).