Who and what is the antichrist?

[Arial]

I'm going by the Revelation text itself which tells us when each of those three Beasts came into existence and from where they originated, and just how long they would last (which ended in total destruction in AD 70).

In that I would say unequivocally that you are wrong. But I have no interest in debating in the endless debate over end times so will just leave it at that, recognizing that it contains no supportive arguments.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But I have no interest in debating in the endless debate over end times so will just leave it at that, recognizing that it contains no supportive arguments.

Not sure if you mean that end times discussions themselves have no supportive arguments, or if you are applying that to what I have written. At any rate, both you and I are addressing the gallery more than each other. It does not perturb me that you don't find agreement with these things. Most are set in their ways with regard to this, or they dismiss the end times subject as not having any real consequence. I used to ignore the subject as well, not having done any thorough research on the topic until 12 years ago. I should not have waited.

 

[Arial]

Not sure if you mean that end times discussions themselves have no supportive arguments, or if you are applying that to what I have written.

I was applying it to me saying you were wrong without supporting that in any way----because I don't want to have the discussion.

 

[Arial]

I used to ignore the subject as well, not having done any thorough research on the topic until 12 years ago. I should not have waited.

I am not ignoring the subject, I don't. I just don't like the forum discussions on it. They are without fruit as far as I am concerned.

 

[Josheb]

I would refer you back to Marty's original first post where he listed the only 4 texts which told the saints back then how to identify an antichrist (1 John and 2 John). We are obligated to use his definition in those texts, since he is the one which uses the "antichrist" term.

The "many antichrists" were the same as the "many false christs" which Jesus warned His generation about in Matthew 24:5 & 24-26. Even before the NT finished being written, we have examples of "false christs" who had cropped up in those days, trying to make a claim of being the prophesied Messiah that should come. Some were literally found in the desert making that claim (as Christ had predicted). Some in AD 66 ended up within the temple itself making that claim (also as Christ - and Paul - had predicted).

I have already answered, addressed, and covered this. Not a single one of those verses states the people were possessed by spirits. Not a single one of those verses states the spirit was a creature. Both positions can be held only by assumption. I've explained both exegetically and logically those texts cannot be read to say one spirit is possessing another and provided an alternative that was ignored.

In other words, I showed how the inferential reading of spirits possession both sinful angels and sinful humans is untenable, and the response was to repeat the arguments just refuted and not address the refutation. The conversation is not moving forward. There is no merit in repeating the original premise that is flawed as if either more proof of error is needed (it is not) or I'm going to repeat myself (I am not). Stop assuming the epistles say angels and humans are forced to deny Christ because of an evil spirit.

I'm going by the Revelation text itself which tells us when each of those three Beasts came into existence and from where they originated, and just how long they would last (which ended in total destruction in AD 70).

The word "antichrist" is not found anywhere in the book of Revelation. Arial is correct: ditch the presuppositions and assumptions and stick to the text as written.

 

[Josheb]

You lost me with that strange connection.

Get used to that.

 

[CrowCross]

Sorry. . Can you see how he used Moses to represent the law of our unseen God and Aaron his prophet. . . the witness of two?

What does that have to do with A&E?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I am not ignoring the subject, I don't. I just don't like the forum discussions on it. They are without fruit as far as I am concerned.

I was not accusing you of ignoring the subject, just mentioning this because of those I have encountered in my last church that weren't really interested in digging into the subject at all. And many on the various forums that I have posted on are rather cemented into their position and don't want any challenges to that view.

You say conversations on this subject are "without fruit". Maybe not the kind you are expecting, but I do think it is beneficial. For one thing, it gives everyone an opportunity to show any unregenerate observer who might chance on reading this an example of how it is possible for believers to have differing views on scripture and still exhibit godly love for our brethren. A grace exercise.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The word "antichrist" is not found anywhere in the book of Revelation.

This is not something that I ever stated. It is obvious that Revelation never uses that specific term. But I know what the Scarlet Beast was, and that Scarlet Beast had ten horns that hated the harlot, Mystery Babylon (Old Jerusalem, "that great city"). These ten horns joined forces with the Scarlet Beast and ended up making Jerusalem desolate and naked, devouring her flesh and burning her with fire, even before the Romans arrived in AD 70 to subdue the city.

At the beginning of those "days of vengeance", the Zealot rebellion established the Scarlet Beast as an independent kingdom of Israel in AD 66 and cast off the dominion of Rome. The records show that those Zealot leaders fought with each other to become a military-type Messiah over Israel. These Zealot leaders were all "false christs" and "antichrists", because they denied that Jesus was the Messiah that had come in the flesh already in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. They wanted to fulfill that coveted role of the Messiah themselves, and several presented themselves as being the Christ.

The first one to do this in the temple itself, exalting himself as King of the Jews, was Menahem who had descended from Judas the Galilean insurrectionist in Acts 5:37. Menahem was "THE Antichrist" which Paul warned the Thessalonians about, who was being restrained until AD 66 from taking control of Jerusalem by the high priest Ananias, a moderate who stayed loyal to Rome. Menahem murdered his restrainer, the former high priest, and "took him out of the way". He then became a tyrannical leader in Jerusalem for a time until he was murdered in vengeance by Ananias's son Eleazar - another Zealot contender for the Messiah role.

 

[Josheb]

This is not something that I ever stated. It is obvious that Revelation never uses that specific term. But I know what the Scarlet Beast was, and that Scarlet Beast had ten horns that hated the harlot, Mystery Babylon (Old Jerusalem, "that great city"). These ten horns joined forces with the Scarlet Beast and ended up making Jerusalem desolate and naked, devouring her flesh and burning her with fire, even before the Romans arrived in AD 70 to subdue the city.

At the beginning of those "days of vengeance", the Zealot rebellion established the Scarlet Beast as an independent kingdom of Israel in AD 66 and cast off the dominion of Rome. The records show that those Zealot leaders fought with each other to become a military-type Messiah over Israel. These Zealot leaders were all "false christs" and "antichrists", because they denied that Jesus was the Messiah that had come in the flesh already in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. They wanted to fulfill that coveted role of the Messiah themselves, and several presented themselves as being the Christ.

The first one to do this in the temple itself, exalting himself as King of the Jews, was Menahem who had descended from Judas the Galilean insurrectionist in Acts 5:37. Menahem was "THE Antichrist" which Paul warned the Thessalonians about, who was being restrained until AD 66 from taking control of Jerusalem by the high priest Ananias, a moderate who stayed loyal to Rome. Menahem murdered his restrainer, the former high priest, and "took him out of the way". He then became a tyrannical leader in Jerusalem for a time until he was murdered in vengeance by Ananias's son Eleazar - another Zealot contender for the Messiah role.

What is the subject of this op?

 

[Mr GLee]

I don't know where you get three. Not saying there are not three. The beast that comes out of the sea, and the beast that comes out of the land and the false prophet are a fakery of Father, Son, Holy Spirit performed by Satan. He is the spiritual force behind all evil. And spiritual does not mean he is not real.

Two is the witness God has spoken(the law of faith) let there be and the testimony seen was good .Three is a crowd The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the father by which we call our Abba

Not the unholy three. . the father the son and the queen of heaven mother

 

[3 Resurrections]

What is the subject of this op?

What's the objection here, Josheb? I was talking about the identity of the many antichrists (the Zealot leaders) and THE Antichrist (also one of those Zealot leaders) back in the first century, which IS the subject of this post.

 

[Josheb]

What's the objection here, Josheb? I was talking about the identity of the many antichrists (the Zealot leaders) and THE Antichrist (also one of those Zealot leaders) back in the first century, which IS the subject of this post.

Consider how your posts read, not just how you intend them. In one post there is the statement, "I would refer you back to Marty's original first post where he listed the only 4 texts which told the saints back then how to identify an antichrist (1 John and 2 John). We are obligated to use his definition in those texts, since he is the one which uses the "antichrist" term," while in that same post I read the statements, "I'm going by the Revelation text itself which tells us when each of those three Beasts came into existence and from where they originated," while in another post there is the statement, "This is not something that I ever stated. It is obvious that Revelation never uses that specific term. But I know what the Scarlet Beast was, and that Scarlet Beast had ten horns that hated the harlot........." and a lot of stuff about the beast..... none of which is specified in John's epistolary. The op is about the antichrists, not the beasts.

While I, personally, might agree with you citing the antichrists as the Jewish Zealots, that conversation can be had without ever leaving John's epistles or mentioning any beast. One of the premiere problems discussing eschatology - especially with modern futurists - is the near constant changing from one scripture to another, usually eisegetically, and never concluding anything with any of the prior texts. I doubt there is a thread in this board where futurist stuck to one text and concluded what could be understood from just the one text (exegetically examined working outward the hermeneutical spiral).

This exchange between you and me started because you disagree with the premise all a person needs to be an antichrist is sin, and my position possession by a specific spirit of antichrist deception is not needed (see Post 57). What is it about the beasts in Revelation that is sticking to the epistolary of John that proves sin is not sufficient and spiritual possession is required? What should I think of a poster who asserts an obligation to stick to one text who then almost immediately leaves the obligation and sources another text broaching characters other than the stipulated antichrists?

My objection is Revelation says nothing explicitly about any antichrist, talking about the beast is not (necessarily) talking about antichrists, both demonstration a failure to stick to the asserted obligation, and while other posters may collaborate with chasing the proverbial squirrel around from verse to verse to verse, I do not. If we are "obligated" to "stick" to the John epistolary then we violate our obligation appealing to his Revelation. Can you see how that reads contradictory (even if not intended)? Can you see the problem from the reader's perspective? Tell me what is in Post 69 that proves Post 57 correct and Post 56 incorrect because this looks an awful lot like mayhem and thread hijacking.


The op states, "John teaches in the bible that the antichrist is not a future evil world leader but a deceiving spirit within many people who was present in John’s day and whose purpose was to divert people away from the true Messiah Jesus the Christ" and there is much in that sentence to commend but there might be some errors in there warranting correction.

For example:

• There are many antichrists, according to John. That is explicitly stated in 1 John 2:18. I am not speculating, adding to or subtracting from the text, or interpreting the text to say or mean anything other than what it plainly states. Therefore, any eschatological discussion of one singular antichrist should necessarily be understood to mean one out of many, not one all alone existing in isolation as the only antichrist.
• The op claims "the" antichrist is not a future person, and specifically not a future world leader, but someone anticipated by John "in the last hour." John does not disclose the identity of the antichrist that is coming among the many antichrists so the antichrist could be a world leader of John's day. Many of the ancient world's leaders met John's stipulated criteria and qualified as antichrists accordingly.
• Since fallen angels also meet the specified criteria the antichrist might not even be human.
• The op concludes the antichrist is a deceiving spirit within many people. If by "deceiving spirit" the op means a spiritual being whose purpose is to deceive many then a bunch of questions are begged because one spirit cannot possess multiple people all at the same time. Is this spirit going from creature to creature temporarily deceiving them while that individual is under the influence of that spirit? Or does this spirit have some means of deceiving a person such that the deception is permanent? Since fallen angels deny Christ in the stipulated way what warrant is there for thinking the deceiving spirit deceived the fallen spirits beyond their already existing fallenness? Where would I find any of that elsewhere in scripture to support the notion that's what John meant?
• On the other hand, what if the op simply mean an attitude or disposition rather than spiritual creature that is a "deceiving spirit." If the deceiving spirit is simply a disposition by which any individual, angelic of human, denies Jesus came from God in the flesh as His Son then we'd want to avoid over-spiritualizing the matter, and that means not over-spiritualizing the personage of the antichrist. Yes, the antichrist could have been one human living in John's day literally possessed by a demon specifically purposed to deny Jesus in the stipulated ways John listed, but is that how the text should be read when there is an Occam's Razor being ignored?
• The op says the antichrist is a deceiving spirit who was present in John's day but John explicitly states the antichrist is coming. That means s/he/it hadn't yet arrived, even if there were already many existing.
• Sin diverts people away from Jesus. In point of fact no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. But, given the responses received, that cannot possibly be true, it MUST be a spirit and definitely not sin.

I'll stop there but a few more points could be added. I do not want to be overwrought or thought to be overthinking. Note my critique occurs as a partial-preterist who whole-heartedly agrees with the premise the antichrist was a first century occurrence, not something to be looked for in the 21st century. I simply think the concluding sentence in the op is sloppy. My preferred points of reply are the affirmation of the preterist view and (possible) dissent over the premise a specific spirit is responsible for the antichrist (that might not have been the intent of the op). I haven't even gotten to the claim, "John used different titles for the beast and the antichrist for a reason and John showed us what those reasons were." There may be huge problems assuming the antichrist and beast (and lawless man) are identical. So when you reply, "No, John's specific requirements describing the many antichrists are more than just humanity being sinful. That was a problem as far back as the Fall. The antichrist phenomena were going to arise at a certain point in time and make the claim to be the Messiah themselves," (bold-face is yours) I think you should consider how that reads because John did NOT state an antichrist claims to be the Messiah. You said we were obligated to the John texts and his definitions.

If the criteria stipulated by John are the measure, then antichrists have always existed. An antichrist denies that Jesus is the anointed one of God (Messiah or Christ). Adam's choice to eat the forbidden kiwi is a repudiation of the tree of life's fruit. Yes, that's symbolism, but it goes back to the garden. God was King, yet Israel rejected God in favor of a human king like all the other nations. That is a denial of Jesus as the anointed one of God. The same holds true of the temple of stone. Every Sadducee in the gospels denied Jesus was the Christ. By that measure they were all antichrists. None of them claimed to be the Messiah in his stead. Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is the spirit of the antichrist. Every human has a spirit. Every angel s a spirit. Billions of angels and humans have not confessed Christ and those not confessing Christ go all the way back to the garden. Very, very few of them claimed to be the Messiah.

So think how your posts read because they are filled with contradictions, non sequitur, and irrelevancies.

 

[turbomaniac]

But that’s not how John describes the antichrist

This is how Saints interpretated Saint John. It is not my perception or personal opinion

 

[Mr GLee]

The Bible I believe identifies another kind of teaching authority other than the word of God (sola scriptura) as"antichrists" False teachers bringing false prophecy (oral tradition of dying mankind) as false apostles.

A good example is found in Matthew 16 with Peter used as one of the many false teachers , Seduced by Satan Peter falsely prophesied rebuked God preventing jesu the Sun of man form doing the will then the father prophesied through Jesus rebuking the father of lies commanding him to get behind God walk by father not behind Peter temporal mankind

Mathew16:22-23 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Antichrists' things of dying men seen. True Christ the things of God not seen revealed as it is written from faith to faith .

 

[Marty]

This is how Saints interpretated Saint John. It is not my perception or personal opinion

Yes some but they are not biblical authority and can be at times wrong

 

[3 Resurrections]

If the criteria stipulated by John are the measure, then antichrists have always existed. An antichrist denies that Jesus is the anointed one of God (Messiah or Christ)

No, they could not always have existed, because John told the saints, "this is that of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world." The presence of the many antichrists John said was proof that it was the last hour, which means the antichrists were only going to come in the last days, and particularly in the "last hour" which John's generation was in. That means the antichrist phenomena could not have always existed, because it was not always the last days or the last hour back in the beginning of creation.

These "antichrists" (which are only spoken of by that specific title in 1 John and 2 John) were also the same thing as the "false christs" (pseudo christs) which Christ in Matthew 24:5 & 24 promised would come, together with many false prophets. 1 John 4:1-3 also referred to the false prophets as contemporary with the antichrists. All this tells me we can use either the "false christ" term in Matthew 24:5 & 24 or the "antichrist" term in 1 & 2 John interchangeably as referring to the same thing. The false prophets of John's day were promoting the false christs / antichrists back then.

The reason I can describe the "antichrists" as claiming to be the Messiah is because Jesus said in Matthew 24:5 that the many "false christs" (aka the many antichrists) would be doing this, saying "I am Christ".

Also, the antichrist's denial that Jesus is the Messiah come in the flesh can only be a denial made after Jesus had already come in the flesh and been rejected as being that promised Messiah by those many antichrists. No one before Jesus was made incarnate either knew of spoke of Him by that specific name. That means the antichrist phenomena had to arise after the incarnate Jesus had been manifested to His people - and consequently rejected by them.

Also, we are allowed to link the phenomena of the antichrists / false christs with the timing of the Beast of Revelation because the Rev. 13 Land Beast is specifically titled "the False Prophet". False prophets and false christs / antichrists were going to be working in conjunction with each other, as Christ said back in Matthew 24:24. The one kind would promote the other kind.

 

[Mr GLee]

Also, we are allowed to link the phenomena of the antichrists / false christs with the timing of the Beast of Revelation because the Rev. 13 Land Beast is specifically titled "the False Prophet". False prophets and false christs / antichrists were going to be working in conjunction with each other, as Christ said back in Matthew 24:24. The one kind would promote the other kind.

False prophets are false Christ as false apostles. All one in the same thing.

Same with your description of land beast separate from sea beast all one in the same. lucifer the the legion the father of lies .

 

[Josheb]

No, they could not always have existed, because John told the saints, "this is that of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world."

"it," not "they."

There were many antichrists, but there was antichrist in particular that was of concern. The definitions of "antichrist" John listed can be applied to many people, even if it was a label John used in the first century. We know the "anointed one," the Messiah," or the "Christ" was understood by some long before John wrote his epistles, long before he was even born. We know this because the gospel was preached to Abraham. We know this because the oaths said by God to David were understood to pertain to the resurrection and Christ's body not seeing decay. There are numerous examples throughout the OT indicating some knowledge of the "Christ" was possessed and understood.

So was its antithesis.

Antichrists have always existed. Their first century poignancy lie in the problem they posed for the first century Christians anticipating Christ's return.

The presence of the many antichrists John said was proof that it was the last hour,

Think.

They knew the last hour had come for many reasons, not just one. One of the many reasons was the existence of many antichrists and their hearing the one particular antichrist was coming. There have always been creatures who denied Jesus is the Christ, denying the Father and the Son. There have always been creatures who did not acknowledge Jesus came from God. There have also been many creatures denying Jesus came in the flesh. In point of fact, enormous heresies developed asserting these very things AFTER the first century - Docetism was one of the earliest of Christian heresies. The Bible provides plenty of examples of humans who held the views that define an antichrist. It simply did not use that label prior to and outside of John's epistolary.

which means the antichrists were only going to come in the last days, and particularly in the "last hour" which John's generation was in. That means the antichrist phenomena could not have always existed, because it was not always the last days or the last hour back in the beginning of creation.

No, that is false cause reasoning that is not sustainable when all scripture is considered.

Most of the Jewish leaders who met Jesus denied Jesus came from God. They denied he was from God. They thought he was working in collusion with Beelzebub! The Gnostics (some of them, at any rate) denied the substance of his flesh. Those denying Jesus have always existed. They simply went by other labels prior to and outside of John's epistolary.

These "antichrists" (which are only spoken of by that specific title in 1 John and 2 John) were also the same thing as the "false christs" (pseudo christs) which Christ in Matthew 24:5 & 24 promised would come, together with many false prophets.

You have just contradicted yourself.

False Christs have always existed.

Acts 5:33-39
But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

Remember: "Christ" is a Greek term. It's not Hebrew or Aramaic. Many people claimed to be mashiach in Jewish history. There have always been fools and psychopaths claiming to be the Savior." Both Cyrus and Alexander considered themselves - and were held by many - to be messiahs. In my lifetime there's been Sun Myoung Moon, David Koresh, and many others. Jewish history is filled with them, and many ancient mythologies had messianic figures. Gamaliel cited Judas of Galilee and the census - that would be around the time of Jesus' birth - long before John's epistles. Furthermore, for Christians, the word "Messiah" or "Christ" has a specific meaning but for the Jews in John's time they were still looking for the Messiah to overthrow Rome and take his place on David's throne.

People claiming to be messiahs and saviors have always existed. Visit any hospital's psych ward on any given day and you'relikely to find one or more.

Also, we are allowed to link the phenomena of the antichrists / false christs with the timing of the Beast of Revelation because the Rev. 13 Land Beast is specifically titled "the False Prophet".

Who is "we"?

Scripture never links the two.

 

[3 Resurrections]

False Christs have always existed.

Acts 5:33-39
But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

We're in agreement that these were two examples of "false Christs" that had arisen. These were both presenting themselves as the fulfillment of DANIEL 9'S 70-week prophecy when "Messiah the Prince" would come in the 483rd year of that prophecy. These "false christs" were hoping that people would believe their claim to be Daniel 9's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" of Israel.

The predicted pattern to be fulfilled was that a prophet would come before that Messiah, announcing His near arrival on the scene. This is why the Jews in the book of John were so concerned in the case of John the Baptist, inquiring if he was that prophet or the Messiah Himself. The prophet and the Messiah were to appear as contemporaries along with each other.

When the religious leaders of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied Messiah, they went searching for another replacement set of a prophet and a Messiah as close to the prophesied 483rd year as possible. This is the reason why Christ Jesus warned that "many false prophets" and "many false christs" would be coming in His own generation. These would be so convincing that if it had been possible, they would have deceived even the elect in those days.

Some false prophets would be claiming that the Messiah they were announcing would be in the wilderness (of Judea). There is one example in Acts 21:38 of an Egyptian who tried to pull off this deception in the wilderness. Other false prophets would be claiming that the Messiah had appeared in the "secret chambers". The "chamber of secrets" was a special room in the temple which served as a repository for anonymous donations for the poor, which were dispensed anonymously at intervals, as well as another room set aside for donations that supported temple maintenance. Since these "secret chambers" were destroyed along with the temple, that means these false prophets and false christs were arising in the days when that second temple was still in existence. It would be pointless to claim that a Messiah had showed up in those "secret chambers" if they had obviously been torn down with the temple earlier in AD 70. So Christ's prediction of these "false prophets" and "false christs" claims would be happening pre-AD 70.

You have just contradicted yourself.

No, this is not a contradiction to say that only 1 & 2 John mentions the specific word "antichrist / s", with Christ using another comparable term for these which was "false christs" for the same type of persons.

Scripture never links the two.

Scripture has Christ linking together as contemporaries the "false prophets" along with the "false christs" in Matthew 24:24. Scripture has John also linking together in those first-century days the existence of "false prophets" as well as "antichrists" in 1 John 2 & 4. And John also identified the Revelation 13 Land Beast as "the False Prophet". All of these were contemporaries that occupied first-century times. The one titled "THE Antichrist" was just like the other antichrists in his time with one exception: he would be the first to get into the second temple, showing himself to be God in that location. This was fulfilled by the Zealot leader Menahem back in AD 66.

This sign of the Man of lawlessness showing himself to be God in the temple would alert the believers that the time for the "gathering together" unto Christ was approaching for them - in that first-century generation, before it had passed away.