The Pope as the Antichrist

[Mr GLee]

Webster? before the Church? Oh my!

Dying mankind Peter our brother in the lord . . . . before eternal God . Oh my!

He failed that test in Mathew 16. Get thee behind me Satan not behind Peter.

Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy of the Son of man Jesus Blasphemy against the unseen eternal father no forgiveness .

Job 9:32-33 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman (pope) betwixt us, that might lay his (Pope)hand upon us both. . . . .Both God not seen and mankind seen

Daysman an umpire or arbiter or judge This word is formed from the Latin diem dicere, i.e., to fix a day for hearing a cause. Such an one is empowered by mutual consent to decide the cause, and to "lay his hand", i.e., to impose his authority, on both, and enforce his sentence.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Oh my!

glad you found them

 

[David1701]

We're not discussing the MoL. This thread is about THE antichrist. I don't need from you scripture from Thessalonians explaining to me the MoL. What I need from you is scripture explicitly identifying the antichrist as the MoL........ or an acknowledgment the premise is entirely inferential. Nothing more was requested.

And which Law was it Jesus was the man of, the fulfiller of?

Then the absurdity of what you're posting should be recognized and..... not taken seriously. The words, "I can't take this comment seriously," is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to incredulity.

Non sequitur. No one has suggested we are talking about run of the mill sinners.

No, we're talking about the antichrist and no one else.

No, we're talking about the antichrist and no one else.

Yes, we're talking about the antichrist and NOT the MoL or SoP. The ASSUMPTION those three are the same person must be proven and what I've read so far is a pile of random coy-and-paste eisegesis that conflates the three terms as if they are identical when, in fact, scripture never states any such thing.

No so obvious if you cannot provide a single verse stating the antichrist, MoL and SoP are the exact same person.


Which Law was it Jesus obeyed and fulfilled?

As I pointed out, 2 Thess. 2:4 describes the attributes of anti-Christ in different words. The man of sin is against Christ and in place of Christ, which is exactly what anti-Christ means. The conclusion is that the man of sin and the anti-Christ are one and the same.

Since the attributes are the same (and uniquely so), you would have to have very strong scriptural evidence to the contrary, to persuade me that they are not the same.

No so obvious if you cannot provide a single verse stating the antichrist, MoL and SoP are the exact same person.

The man of sin and the son of perdition are clearly the same. This is stated in 2 Thess. 2:3, which I quoted in my post.

2 Thess. 2:3 (Webster)
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;

Which Law was it Jesus obeyed and fulfilled?

The whole law of Moses.

 

[Mr GLee]

glad you found them

LOL that what my children call me Mr. Folger the secret agent. Fill it to the rim with Brim

 

[Josheb]

As I pointed out, 2 Thess. 2:4 describes the attributes of anti-Christ in different words.

Yes, I understand the claim is made, but the proof is lacking. It's an entirely inferential argument made solely because of a pre-existing belief, an assumption, the two men are the same person.

The man of sin is against Christ and in place of Christ, which is exactly what anti-Christ means.

Lots of unique individuals, not-ordinary-sinners are against Christ. That does not make them all THE antichrist. If the argument is, "Those who are uniquely sinful in a manner contrary to Christ are the same person, the antichrist," then that is a construction error in reasoning.... and I'll partly prove it to you in a minute.

The conclusion is that the man of sin and the anti-Christ are one and the same.

That is your conclusion. I reject that conclusion because the case made for it is a logically fallacious one (dubious at best) that completely lacks any explicitly report from scripture and can be made only if certain assumptions are held beforehand, not as a consequence of objectively read scripture.

Since the attributes are the same (and uniquely so), you would have to have very strong scriptural evidence to the contrary, to persuade me that they are not the same.

The man of sin and the son of perdition are clearly the same. This is stated in 2 Thess. 2:3, which I quoted in my post.

2 Thess. 2:3 (Webster)
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;

The whole law of Moses.

Yes!!!!

It is the Law of Moses that is the measure of the man. It is the Law of Moses the Thessalonian readers would be using to identify the MoL! The MoL is a man who disobeys the Law of Moses. He's not a man who is measured by his disobedience to Roman law, or Zimbabwean law, or modern Israeli, US, UK, or UN law, but a man who disobeys the Law of Moses (and that is how the original readers of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians would have understood what they were reading at that time in the first century). This inference begs several important questions, but I'll mention only three to keep the discussion op-relevant:

• Why would anyone think the Pope is obeying the Law of Moses in the first place?
• Why would anyone think the John and his original readers think the Pope was the antichrist who would disobey the Law of Moses when there were no popes living in the first century?
• Why would John or any first century reader of the first century epistle think any Caesar was going to obey the Law of Moses?

I hope that simply by understanding the Law by which the MoL is measured is that of Moses, we should all agree the pope is not the antichrist and whoever the antichrist was..... he was most likely a Jew, not a Gentile. Even were we modern futurists expecting THE antichrist to appear sometime in the future, we'd have problems conflating the MoL with THE antichrist because the MoL is Jewish, an antithetical subscriber to the Law of Moses and not some other law. The minute the Law of Moses is acknowledged as relevant to the MoL problems exist in the argument you've presented. If the MoL is Jewish, an antithetical subscriber to the Law of Moses, an anti-christ who can and must be measured by the Law of Moses, then it must also be required the antichrist was/is Jewish if the two are the same person. Ironically, there was a Jew who stood in the temple and (indirectly) declared himself God. Ironically again, there were three Jews (the MoL, the AoD*, or the beast, and the AC? ), who meet the criteria the three different persons cited in scripture.

In other words, there is a better alternative to the all-the-same-man position that does not require all the many inferences you've presented. Paul and John were writing about two or three (or more) different individuals, each of whom could/would have been recognized by the author and his original readership based on the criteria provided at that time.










* I do not believe the AoD is a person. The AoD is the condition of desolation. Desolation is an abimination to God. The AoD is the abomination of desolation.
.

 

[Mr GLee]

Antichrists' false apostles bringing false prophet .It began in the garden of Eden . . the cause of the fall

 

[Alive]

Yes, I understand the claim is made, but the proof is lacking. It's an entirely inferential argument made solely because of a pre-existing belief, an assumption, the two men are the same person.

Lots of unique individuals, not-ordinary-sinners are against Christ. That does not make them all THE antichrist. If the argument is, "Those who are uniquely sinful in a manner contrary to Christ are the same person, the antichrist," then that is a construction error in reasoning.... and I'll partly prove it to you in a minute.

That is your conclusion. I reject that conclusion because the case made for it is a logically fallacious one (dubious at best) that completely lacks any explicitly report from scripture and can be made only if certain assumptions are held beforehand, not as a consequence of objectively read scripture.



Yes!!!!

It is the Law of Moses that is the measure of the man. It is the Law of Moses the Thessalonian readers would be using to identify the MoL! The MoL is a man who disobeys the Law of Moses. He's not a man who is measured by his disobedience to Roman law, or Zimbabwean law, or modern Israeli, US, UK, or UN law, but a man who disobeys the Law of Moses (and that is how the original readers of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians would have understood what they were reading at that time in the first century). This inference begs several important questions, but I'll mention only three to keep the discussion op-relevant:

• Why would anyone think the Pope is obeying the Law of Moses in the first place?
• Why would anyone think the John and his original readers think the Pope was the antichrist who would disobey the Law of Moses when there were no popes living in the first century?
• Why would John or any first century reader of the first century epistle think any Caesar was going to obey the Law of Moses?

I hope that simply by understanding the Law by which the MoL is measured is that of Moses, we should all agree the pope is not the antichrist and whoever the antichrist was..... he was most likely a Jew, not a Gentile. Even were we modern futurists expecting THE antichrist to appear sometime in the future, we'd have problems conflating the MoL with THE antichrist because the MoL is Jewish, an antithetical subscriber to the Law of Moses and not some other law. The minute the Law of Moses is acknowledged as relevant to the MoL problems exist in the argument you've presented. If the MoL is Jewish, an antithetical subscriber to the Law of Moses, an anti-christ who can and must be measured by the Law of Moses, then it must also be required the antichrist was/is Jewish if the two are the same person. Ironically, there was a Jew who stood in the temple and (indirectly) declared himself God. Ironically again, there were three Jews (the MoL, the AoD*, or the beast, and the AC? ), who meet the criteria the three different persons cited in scripture.

In other words, there is a better alternative to the all-the-same-man position that does not require all the many inferences you've presented. Paul and John were writing about two or three (or more) different individuals, each of whom could/would have been recognized by the author and his original readership based on the criteria provided at that time.










* I do not believe the AoD is a person. The AoD is the condition of desolation. Desolation is an abimination to God. The AoD is the abomination of desolation.
.

1. Do you see a future Antichrist character aside from run of the mill antichrists?
2. Do you see that such a character comes from somewhere specific?

 

[Josheb]

1. Do you see a future Antichrist character aside from run of the mill antichrists?

I do not see THE antichrist in the future. John was writing about conditions existing in the first century, to an audience living in the first century for which what he was writing was relevant and applicable. Many antichrists lived during that time period and many more have since come, gone, and many others are alive today, but THE specific antichrist to which he was referring has come and gone.

2. Do you see that such a character comes from somewhere specific?

Wherever he came from was a place existing long ago. Whether it remains existent to this day I do not know. As a partial-preterist I tend to think one of the (Jewish) Zealots was the person t about whom John was referring. John was among the most Jewish of the NT writers, constantly citing/referencing the OT with an expectation his readers recognized and understood the references. They were the ones told to be looking for THE antichrist and if he did not come at that time the John's admonition or exhortation was meaningless to them. Scripture is never meaningless. I read the text to be predictive, not solely allegorically indicating a pattern or type of event that occurs throughout history (although I do not reject that also happens).

Regardless, the Pope is not, was not, and never has been THE antichrist written about in John's epistles. He and/or the papal system may be an anti-christological person or entity (system), but it is not THE antichrist about which John wrote. The Pope does not meet John's specified criteria, if the MoL and THE antichrist are the same person then the antichrist was Jewish and, either way, he died long ago.

What we look forward to is our transformative resurrection, the harvest and wedding feast, he descent of the new city of peace, and the final coming of Christ. All the modern futurist drama is nonsense and rank speculation.

 

[Alive]

I do not see THE antichrist in the future. John was writing about conditions existing in the first century, to an audience living in the first century for which what he was writing was relevant and applicable. Many antichrists lived during that time period and many more have since come, gone, and many others are alive today, but THE specific antichrist to which he was referring has come and gone.

Wherever he came from was a place existing long ago. Whether it remains existent to this day I do not know. As a partial-preterist I tend to think one of the (Jewish) Zealots was the person t about whom John was referring. John was among the most Jewish of the NT writers, constantly citing/referencing the OT with an expectation his readers recognized and understood the references. They were the ones told to be looking for THE antichrist and if he did not come at that time the John's admonition or exhortation was meaningless to them. Scripture is never meaningless. I read the text to be predictive, not solely allegorically indicating a pattern or type of event that occurs throughout history (although I do not reject that also happens).

Regardless, the Pope is not, was not, and never has been THE antichrist written about in John's epistles. He and/or the papal system may be an anti-christological person or entity (system), but it is not THE antichrist about which John wrote. The Pope does not meet John's specified criteria, if the MoL and THE antichrist are the same person then the antichrist was Jewish and, either way, he died long ago.

What we look forward to is our transformative resurrection, the harvest and wedding feast, he descent of the new city of peace, and the final coming of Christ. All the modern futurist drama is nonsense and rank speculation.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Carbon]

Regardless, the Pope is not, was not, and never has been THE antichrist written about in John's epistles.

I agree. Though at one time I leaned toward it.

 

[Alive]

I agree. Though at one time I leaned toward it.

I haven’t come to any conclusion.

 

[Carbon]

I haven’t come to any conclusion.

I understand brother. Eschatology in that area, is not an easy thing to figure.

 

[Alive]

I understand brother. Eschatology in that area, is not an easy thing to figure.

I am nearly convinced amillennial position is correct and along with it, there is an antichrist character to emerge at the end of this period based on 2 Thes. 2. Seems clear to me, Paul is talking about an individual.
Pope? Dunno.

 

[Carbon]

I am nearly convinced amillennial position is correct and along with it, there is an antichrist character to emerge at the end of this period based on 2 Thes. 2. Seems clear to me, Paul is talking about an individual.
Pope? Dunno.

See, I am also Amillennial and I do not see it as a person. But more of a system. Now there are many antichrists in the world as Jesus said. I just do not see any longer an Antichrist. I believe when the devil is unbound, he will create many problems and tribulation will get much worse,

 

[Alive]

See, I am also Amillennial and I do not see it as a person. But more of a system. Now there are many antichrists in the world as Jesus said. I just do not see any longer an Antichrist. I believe when the devil is unbound, he will create many problems and tribulation will get much worse,

I like the notion some suggest that the beast is a system and there is a character that Christ will kill when he returns.
“Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that he will be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is removed. Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.”

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 NAS20)

 

[Josheb]

I am nearly convinced amillennial position is correct and along with it, there is an antichrist character to emerge at the end of this period based on 2 Thes. 2. Seems clear to me, Paul is talking about an individual.
Pope? Dunno.

See, I am also Amillennial and I do not see it as a person. But more of a system. Now there are many antichrists in the world as Jesus said. I just do not see any longer an Antichrist. I believe when the devil is unbound, he will create many problems and tribulation will get much worse,

Amillennialism is not monolithic. There are classic amils and there amil idealists. There are also amil postmils, like myself, who don't subscribe to the classic postmil premise of a near-perfect state on earth prior to Christ's final return but otherwise believe the gospel will continue to have a fruit-bearing effect as long as Dispensationalists will get out of the way or be kept from mucking things up for the rest of us .

Yep. I said it.

Moder futurisms (like Dispensationalism) have to deny the very basic exegetical precepts like that of original meaning, audience affiliation, and temporal markers, etc. to make the antichrist a Pope and make him something still in our future. Idealism, in contrast, remains viable because it doesn't consider the relevant texts specifically predictive (a premise I largely reject) but it cannot hold a view on THE antichrist because it subscribes to many an antichrist as a condition reoccurring through time.


The op-relevant point, however, is that the Pope does not meet the criteria specified by John and the inferential arguments asserting the Pope thusly all neglect basic exegesis.

 

[Mr GLee]

1. Do you see a future Antichrist character aside from run of the mill antichrists?
2. Do you see that such a character comes from somewhere specific?

Antichrists another teaching authority other than sola scriptura the living abiding word of God.

The pattern was set in the garden of Eden . Antichrists' false apostles bringing false prophecy oral traditions of men

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[David1701]

Yes, I understand the claim is made, but the proof is lacking. It's an entirely inferential argument made solely because of a pre-existing belief, an assumption, the two men are the same person.

The proof is in the fact that the meaning of anti-Christ is expressed in 2 Thess. 2:4 (in place of the Lord and against him), but under the titles of "man of sin" and "son of perdition".

Lots of unique individuals, not-ordinary-sinners are against Christ. That does not make them all THE antichrist. If the argument is, "Those who are uniquely sinful in a manner contrary to Christ are the same person, the antichrist," then that is a construction error in reasoning.... and I'll partly prove it to you in a minute.

Anti-Christ is not only against Christ; it also, and this crucial, means "in place of Christ". The office of Pope claims that he is not only in Christ's stead, but actually is Christ on earth.

That is your conclusion. I reject that conclusion because the case made for it is a logically fallacious one (dubious at best) that completely lacks any explicitly report from scripture and can be made only if certain assumptions are held beforehand, not as a consequence of objectively read scripture.

Do you have a better suggestion for who the anti-Christ is/was and who the man of sin is/was?

It is the Law of Moses that is the measure of the man. It is the Law of Moses the Thessalonian readers would be using to identify the MoL! The MoL is a man who disobeys the Law of Moses. He's not a man who is measured by his disobedience to Roman law, or Zimbabwean law, or modern Israeli, US, UK, or UN law, but a man who disobeys the Law of Moses (and that is how the original readers of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians would have understood what they were reading at that time in the first century). This inference begs several important questions, but I'll mention only three to keep the discussion op-relevant:

• Why would anyone think the Pope is obeying the Law of Moses in the first place?
• Why would anyone think the John and his original readers think the Pope was the antichrist who would disobey the Law of Moses when there were no popes living in the first century?
• Why would John or any first century reader of the first century epistle think any Caesar was going to obey the Law of Moses?

This is a misunderstanding.

Firstly, I believe that "man of sin" is the correct reading; however, even taking "man of lawlessness" to be correct, it does not mean someone, specifically, who disobeys the law of Moses.

Lawlessness means not being under law at all (not in the sense of being under grace, but in the sense of not submitting to law). It refers to someone who is a law unto himself (e.g. the Pope, making up his own laws, with his own usurped authority).

 

[David1701]

See, I am also Amillennial and I do not see it as a person. But more of a system. Now there are many antichrists in the world as Jesus said. I just do not see any longer an Antichrist. I believe when the devil is unbound, he will create many problems and tribulation will get much worse,

Anti-Christ means against Christ and in place of Christ. Would you say that the office of Pope fulfils those criteria? He is certainly the head of a beast system.

 

[Carbon]

Anti-Christ means against Christ and in place of Christ. Would you say that the office of Pope fulfils those criteria? He is certainly the head of a beast system.

Yes, I believe the pope sits in the place of God, he is carried around like a god, they call him holy father. And a bunch of other reasons I answer yes. But exactly where or what passage convinces you of that? The pope being the Antichrist that is.

Jesus said there are many Antichrist’s in the world. Do you believe that? If that be the case, what is the actual meaning of antichrist? Are there more than one as scripture says or are they all wrapped up into one? If so scripture should teach it