Who and what is the antichrist?

[Mr GLee]

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.

The antichrist (singular satan) works in all the false apostles sent as false prophets antichrists( plural ),

He first deceived Eve by adding to prophecy as a oral traditions of the father of lies "and neither shall you touch " Then Satan seduced Cain as a the first antichrist sent one and murdered the first true apostle sent with prophecy Abel..

Not sure was is meant by the second temple?

 

[Josheb]

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.

That is not where the contradiction lies.

Scripture has Christ linking together as contemporaries the "false prophets" along with the "false christs" in Matthew 24:24.

Yep. That point is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the premise false Christs were limited to the brief period of time during and soon following John's epistles. They were not. They had existed prior to the Mount of Olives discourse. Their prior existence gave meaning to the words. The disciples understood the reference because there'd been many Moons and Koreshes throughout history. There was going to be an abundance of them in the last hour and one in particular - one among many - was of particular concern. John explicitly stated, "even now many antichrists have come."

Many had come.

One was coming. Many had come.

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.

The correlation between false prophets and messiahs is not in dispute.

And John also identified the Revelation 13 Land Beast as "the False Prophet".

Prophets are not messiahs or saviors. I might just as easily argue the beast is NOT an antichrist because he is called a (false) prophet and not a (false) christ. He's a prophet, not a messiah.

Do not assume the two are synonymous in the case of the beast.

All of these were contemporaries that occupied first-century times.

I completely agree John is writing about first century conditions, those leading up to, during, and soon following the city's destruction in 70 AD. None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim antichrists did not exist before or after John's epistles.

They did.

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.

Don't digress. I am not interested and take at as an effort to avoid the point in dispute.


Perhaps this will clarify the issue:

The OT prophecy a virgin would bear a child are often debated because the original language can be translated "maiden" instead of "virgin." The problem with the "maiden" argument is there's nothing particularly unique or prophetic about a young woman being pregnant or having a child. A virgin getting pregnant and having a child is unique and a prediction saying a virgin is going to have a child is something to look for because of its uniqueness.

The reverse happens with John's commentary on the antichrists (plural). He explicitly states many have come (plural and past-tense). Then he gives descriptions that are very commonplace.

• They deny Jesus is the Messiah.
• They deny the Father and the Son.
• They deny Jesus is from God.
• They deny Jesus came in the flesh.

There is nothing particularly unique about any four of those denials. Anyone could, at any time make any one or all four of those denials - especially if the reference to "came in the flesh" is a reference to the resurrection and not the incarnation. Men born into the world with flesh and blood is something that happens every day, but someone coming back from the dead, someone walking through the walls of a house and showing everyone in attendance his scars while declaring, "See that I have flesh and bone," is very unique. Very easy to deny.

Part of the problem with this op and the ensuing discussion is that the John verses were selectively removed from their narratives. It's also very important to read, accept, believe, know and understand,

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

Is the "us," all converts to Christ? Or is the "us" the apostles? Do you see how often John said "they" in that one verse? There many of them. ANYONE who denies Jesus is the Messiah is an antichrist. There were more people denying Jesus is the Messiah than there were believing he was the Messiah. But most of the gazillion people denying Jesus was the Messiah did not come from among the "us." How can anyone claim to know the antichrist if they have ignored the fact he/they came from among the "us."

This may be a problem for any of the Jewish Zealots preterists commonly argue were the lawless man (among whom I would count myself).

He came from among the Christians, not the Jews and not the Romans .

It's not unusual for a young woman to get pregnant. It is not unusual or people or fallen angels to deny Jesus. It is the eccentricity that makes the prediction prophetic. It is the eccentricity that identifies the culprit . In the case of the antichrist (as opposed to the virgin), the canon of scripture was closed before his identity was made known. Which, sadly, is why there is so much speculation. Even sadder, there are many among us (pun intended) who think the guy is still in our future.


I gotta go. I'll get back to this later if necessary.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Prophets are not messiahs or saviors. I might just as easily argue the beast is NOT an antichrist because he is called a (false) prophet and not a (false) christ. He's a prophet, not a messiah.

Oh, I agree with this. Maybe I didn't phrase myself clearly enough. The two-horned, Rev. 13 Land Beast of the Jewish religious leadership that spoke lies just like the Dragon was not a Messiah pretender, just as you've said. In John the Baptist's days, they were attempting to identity the one who was the coming Messiah, but they were not pretending to be the Messiah themselves. They did indeed play the role of "False Prophet", though, because they denied that Jesus had become the fulfillment of Daniel 9's Messiah role.

The Beast which did have antichrists serving it was the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast in the wilderness.

• They deny Jesus is the Messiah.
• They deny the Father and the Son.
• They deny Jesus is from God.
• They deny Jesus came in the flesh.

There is nothing particularly unique about any four of those denials. Anyone could, at any time make any one or all four of those denials

Not exactly. The unique thing about those denials is that Jesus had to have been incarnated and on the public scene for anyone to deny that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Messiah that was to come. Before Jesus became the incarnate Son of God on earth, no one knew of Him by that name yet, and so could not have denied Jesus was the Christ.

Don't digress. I am not interested and take at as an effort to avoid the point in dispute.

The "Man of Lawlessness" is not a digression. "Lawlessness" which Paul said was already at work in his days was the Zealot cause. In fulfillment of prophecy, Christ was crucified between two "lawless" Zealot thieves, who had been part of Barabbas's group participating in an insurrection against Rome. The various Zealot leaders that arose were antichrists or false christs making the claim "I am the Christ".

This is not the problem that you think it might be for those antichrists which John said had "come out from among us" in the church. After all, one of Christs own chosen twelve was a converted Zealot (Simon Zelotes). This would indicate it was not an unknown for those who had Zealot sympathies to be among the company of the believers. Particularly since Christ was raised in the Galilee region where Zealotry was common.

 

[Mr GLee]

Prophets are not messiahs or saviors. I might just as easily argue the beast is NOT an antichrist because he is called a (false) prophet and not a (false) christ. He's a prophet, not a messiah.

Prophets are apostles sent with the living word of God.

The beast the the lying spirit (satan) influences many antichrists calling them false prophets, false apostles ,false teachers .

The spirit of the antichrist began developing false prophets false apostles in the garden of Eden. Adding false prophecy (and neither shall you touch look at my beauty and live forever why believe in a God not seen?

The antichrist Satan working in Peter below as one of the many antichrists that was there . God forgave Peter of his Blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus , Blasphemy won't be forgiven against our unseen God. . that 33 year window is gone .

Mathew 16:22-23 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he (the father) 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.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Not sure was is meant by the second temple?

The one titled "THE Antichrist" was going to get into the temple that still existed in Paul's days. This "second temple" was Zerubbabel's temple built by Ezekiel's "blueprints" given by God, which had been renovated extensively by Herod. The paint was barely dry, so to speak, on those renovations of the second temple before it was torn down to the last stone in the AD 70 period. That means Paul's Man of Lawlessness (who was "THE Antichrist" John wrote about) would have to fulfill that 2 Thessalonians 2 prediction before that second temple was destroyed.

 

[Josheb]

Oh, I agree with this. Maybe I didn't phrase myself clearly enough. The two-horned, Rev. 13 Land Beast....

I'm not discussing beasts.

You keep digressing and avoiding the point. It's a very plain, simple, and singular point: people with the qualities of "antichrist" that John lists (and I do not think his list exhaustive) have always existed. There is another point that's fallen away from the exchange and that's the over-spiritualization of the antichrist. To say there is an actual creature - a spirit - that makes antichrists logically means there is a spirit infecting other spirits (fallen angels) and humans, making them deny Jesus. Not only is that questionable, it leads to significant conflicts with volitional agency soteriologically

That's where this digression with you and me began. The op is good, overall, but there are a couple of minor problems, imo, beginning with the notion antichrists are solely a first century condition when John's definitions are applicable using other labels throughout the scriptures and observable history, and the notion there is an actual spirit going about making people antichrists when there is a much simpler and consistent-with-whole-scripture alternative: sin.

Until those matters are either resolved or exhausted, I'm not interested in discussing the beast and lawless man because they exact same failure applying scripture and reaching resolution are likely to occur. If a poster cannot stick to the single subject of antichrist, then I know s/he's not going to stick to the beast or the lawless man when those subjects are broached.

And I say the above as someone sharing the (partial-)preterist point of view.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That's where this digression with you and me began. The op is good, overall, but there are a couple of minor problems, imo, beginning with the notion antichrists are solely a first century condition when John's definitions are applicable using other labels throughout the scriptures and observable history, and the notion there is an actual spirit going about making people antichrists when there is a much simpler and consistent-with-whole-scripture alternative: sin.

There are grounds for having the discussion of the antichrists / false christs to also include a spirit element behind those antichrists / false christs. One of the serious issues plaguing those years from Christ's ascension in AD 33 to AD 70 was the presence of a released Satan on earth, fully-engaged in deceiving the nations once more (after the millennium of his deception being bound had ended in AD 33). John had warned the saints that this was then an ongoing problem for them (Rev. 12:12). Satan and his devils and unclean spirits operated without restraint in deceiving the nations of that "wicked generation" during its "last state". This was part of what made it worse in those days for that generation than its "first state" when Christ had been among them casting out devils (as in Matthew 12:43-45).

The warning about the antichrists / the "false christs" would be against their deceiving anyone. This deception would be so convincing that if it were possible, it could have deceived even the elect in those days. "Be not deceived" is a constant drumbeat throughout the NT writings; a pertinent warning for those times when Satan was then walking about as a roaring lion, looking for those he could devour. The wicked men and seducers of that generation would get "worse and worse" in their ability to deceive others and in being deceived themselves on an increasing level. Much of that deception was due to Satan's realm ramping up their efforts in that "short time" before they were all to be destroyed by God by the end of AD 70. This means that after that time, no Satanic or demonic spiritual deception would be part of any kind of antichrist deception from then on.

God did not leave His own unequipped in that first century to deal with this sharp increase of the Satanic realm's influence on deceiving the nations (particularly the many antichrists / false christs) at that time. God had already "poured out His Spirit on all flesh" on the day of Pentecost, in preparation for a released Satan's deception at the end of the millennium in AD 33.

There are also grounds for limiting this antichrist / false christ phenomena to those first century times. After all, the very word "christ" means "anointed one". This was specifically in reference to Daniel 9's 70-week prophecy of "Messiah the Prince" who was called "Christ", meaning "the Anointed One". The antichrists / false christs were the fake substitutes when Jesus, the real Messiah the Prince had been rejected as the fulfillment of that Daniel 9 prophecy.

 

[Mr GLee]

The one titled "THE Antichrist" was going to get into the temple that still existed in Paul's days. This "second temple" was Zerubbabel's temple built by Ezekiel's "blueprints" given by God, which had been renovated extensively by Herod. The paint was barely dry, so to speak, on those renovations of the second temple before it was torn down to the last stone in the AD 70 period. That means Paul's Man of Lawlessness (who was "THE Antichrist" John wrote about) would have to fulfill that 2 Thessalonians 2 prediction before that second temple was destroyed.

The antichrist is Satan(singular ) he works-in antichrists( many) false apostles. Began in the garden of Eden in order to bring false prophecy as false apostles. When a person hears of false prophecy, false apostles. He is the lying power the behind the scenes.

God no longer uses the outward flesh of a Jew after the closing of the bible.Satn the antichrist will be released for a short while to a again try and deceive the whole world God is a Jewish man as King of kings .

Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation

 

[Josheb]

There are grounds for having the discussion of the antichrists / false christs to also include a spirit element behind those antichrists / false christs.

I agree, and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. However, "a spirit 'element'" (whatever that might be) is not the same as suggesting an actual spirit makes people into antichrists......

...and that discussion can and should be had without bringing in the best or lawless man.

One of the serious issues plaguing those years from Christ's ascension in AD 33 to AD 70 was the presence of a released Satan on earth, fully-engaged in deceiving the nations once more (after the millennium of his deception being bound had ended in AD 33).

Not if his binding began in the past. Not if Jude 1 is correct. Not if Isaiah 14:12 is what Jesus was referencing when he said he saw satan fall. While modern futurists speculate about when that binding will begin with extra-biblical doctrines filtered through the evening news I can point to scripture stating satan has already been bound.

Jude 1:6-7
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

...and again point out much of what John wrote were events that had occurred prior to his writing Revelation.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

...while modern futurists ignore those scriptures and use their speculations to prognosticate.

John had warned the saints that this was then an ongoing problem for them (Rev. 12:12). Satan and his devils and unclean spirits operated without restraint in deceiving the nations of that "wicked generation" during its "last state". This was part of what made it worse in those days for that generation than its "first state" when Christ had been among them casting out devils (as in Matthew 12:43-45).

The warning about the antichrists / the "false christs" would be against their deceiving anyone. This deception would be so convincing that if it were possible, it could have deceived even the elect in those days. "Be not deceived" is a constant drumbeat throughout the NT writings; a pertinent warning for those times when Satan was then walking about as a roaring lion, looking for those he could devour. The wicked men and seducers of that generation would get "worse and worse" in their ability to deceive others and in being deceived themselves on an increasing level. Much of that deception was due to Satan's realm ramping up their efforts in that "short time" before they were all to be destroyed by God by the end of AD 70. This means that after that time, no Satanic or demonic spiritual deception would be part of any kind of antichrist deception from then on.

God did not leave His own unequipped in that first century to deal with this sharp increase of the Satanic realm's influence on deceiving the nations (particularly the many antichrists / false christs) at that time. God had already "poured out His Spirit on all flesh" on the day of Pentecost, in preparation for a released Satan's deception at the end of the millennium in AD 33.

There are also grounds for limiting this antichrist / false christ phenomena to those first century times. After all, the very word "christ" means "anointed one". This was specifically in reference to Daniel 9's 70-week prophecy of "Messiah the Prince" who was called "Christ", meaning "the Anointed One". The antichrists / false christs were the fake substitutes when Jesus, the real Messiah the Prince had been rejected as the fulfillment of that Daniel 9 prophecy.

Not seeing anything new or anything that hasn't already been addressed.

 

[TMSO]

There are only four verses in the entire bible that uses the word antichrist

1 John 2:18
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Many Christians believe that the antichrist will be the future evil world ruler of the book of Revelation who will rule the world during the end times but is that what the bible actually teaches?

It is interesting that John the disciple who wrote the four verses mentioning the word antichrist was the same John who wrote the book of Revelation. It is also interesting that John didn’t use the word antichrist in the book of Revelation. Why would this be? Could it be that the antichrist John wrote about in his epistles is different from the one most Christians believe to be the antichrist in the book of Revelation?

John used the word beast to describe the evil persecuting world leader in the book of Revelation and its description and character is much different from the description and character of the antichrist. The beast is described symbolically as a ten horned seven headed creature who rules the world and persecutes the saints.

Let’s look at who and what John says is the antichrist.

1 John 2:18-27
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

John is showing us that the antichrist isn’t just one person but many people. John is also stating that the antichrist was present before, after and during his day. John also states that the antichrist is the opposite of truth and John tells us in the verse below that Jesus is truth

John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Thus this antichrist who John says is a liar is antichrist because it is the opposite of truth which is Jesus who is the Christ.

Let’s look at what else John says is the antichrist.

1 John 4:1-6
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Once again John tells us that this antichrist is not just one but many. John tells us again that the antichrist was present in his day and John also tells us that the antichrist is not just people but it is actually a spirit. Let’s take a look at the last time that John mentions the word antichrist.

2 John 1:4-11
4 It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. 5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

John tells us once again that the antichrist isn’t just one but many. John then goes on to say that this antichrist is the deceiving spirit who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Jesus Christ coming in the flesh means that the Man Jesus is the Christ the anointed one the Messiah the son of God.

When we read all four verses that uses the word antichrist it seems that he was meaning apostate Israel in his day. Apostate Israel was active when John wrote these words and they denied that Jesus was the Christ by denying Jesus they also denied the Father. Antichrist is not complete in apostate Israel but they do fit the description John gave in his day.

The antichrist is much different from the sea beast in the book of Revelation. The sea beast purpose is to rule the earth to be worshipped as god, destroy Babylon the great and to try to wipeout the church. The antichrist purpose to deceive and to divert people away from the Messiah Jesus the Christ. The antichrist is more like the land beast from the book of Revelation also known as the false prophet.

In conclusion 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. John used different titles for the beast and the antichrist for a reason and John showed us what those reasons were.

The Antichrist will be one, a person, I believe possessed by Satan in a mock resurrection, who will be the antithesis of Christ. The horn that appeared to receive the mortal wound, but is yet still alive. Alive by the power of Satan. Satan can resurrect anyone, but he can make it appear that way. Would that not be direct mockery and blasphemy of Christ? Is that not the aim of an antichrist? Not to say there is no God, but to say that they are God. The antithesis of God. The complete and utter opposite in every regard. The one who will stand in the holiest place and make themselves out to be God. (As the prophecies speak of.) There is only one Antichrist, but many antichrists. They are different and claim there is no God. The Antichrist is different, he proclaims himself God.

If you want it more interesting, consider that basically the antichrists are out there preparing for the coming of the Antichrist. Like John the Baptist. Even more to make it clear the position this person will take. These antichrists turn the people away from God, and the Antichrist will pull them right in.

 

[Marty]

The Antichrist will be one, a person, I believe possessed by the Holy Spirit in a mock resurrection, who will be the antithesis of Christ. The horn that appeared to receive the mortal wound, but is yet still alive. Alive by the power of Satan. Satan can resurrect anyone, but he can make it appear that way. Would that not be direct mockery and blasphemy of Christ? Is that not the aim of an antichrist? Not to say there is no God, but to say that they are God. The antithesis of God. The complete and utter opposite in every regard. The one who will stand in the holiest place and make themselves out to be God. (As the prophecies speak of.) There is only one Antichrist, but many antichrists. They are different and claim there is no God. The Antichrist is different, he proclaims himself God.

If you want it more interesting, consider that basically the antichrists are out there preparing for the coming of the Antichrist. Like John the Baptist. Even more to make it clear the position this person will take. These antichrists turn the people away from God, and the Antichrist will pull them right in.

That is not what the bible verses I provided say the antichrist is

How can the Holy Sprit possess someone to do a mock resurrection?

 

[TMSO]

That is not what the bible verses I provided say the antichrist is

How can the Holy Sprit possess someone to do a mock resurrection?

Satan... we are talking about Satan. Jesus actually rose from the dead, Satan will fake one.

 

[Marty]

Satan... we are talking about Satan. Jesus actually rose from the dead, Satan will fake one.

Okay thanks but that wasn’t what you printed

On the first point though that is not what the bible verses I provided say the antichrist is

 

[Mr GLee]

The Antichrist will be one, a person, I believe possessed by the Holy Spirit in a mock resurrection, who will be the antithesis of Christ. The horn that appeared to receive the mortal wound, but is yet still alive. Alive by the power of Satan. Satan can resurrect anyone, but he can make it appear that way. Would that not be direct mockery and blasphemy of Christ? Is that not the aim of an antichrist? Not to say there is no God, but to say that they are God. The antithesis of God. The complete and utter opposite in every regard. The one who will stand in the holiest place and make themselves out to be God. (As the prophecies speak of.) There is only one Antichrist, but many antichrists. They are different and claim there is no God. The Antichrist is different, he proclaims himself God.

If you want it more interesting, consider that basically the antichrists are out there preparing for the coming of the Antichrist. Like John the Baptist. Even more to make it clear the position this person will take. These antichrists turn the people away from God, and the Antichrist will pull them right in.

The antichrist (false teaching authority) is the spirit of lies that works in false apostles who bring false prophecy.

 

[Marty]

Satan... we are talking about Satan. Jesus actually rose from the dead, Satan will fake one.

But you wrote "the Holy Spirit"

 

[TMSO]

But you wrote "the Holy Spirit"

In speaking of the antichrist, Satan will fake a resurrection. Jesus was raised by the Father, showing that the sacrifice satisfied God's justice.

 

[TMSO]

The antichrist (false teaching authority) is the spirit of lies that works in false apostles who bring false prophecy.

Those were the antichrists John was talking about. However, he speaks of a central figure, a central "antichrist" to come. He will stand in the face of God Himself, and make Himself out to be God. He will seek to subjugate all under himself, against God.

 

[TMSO]

But you wrote "the Holy Spirit"

Oops...

 

[Brakelite]

Curious .

I know this might seem obvious but if I use John's specified criteria.... Can you show me in scripture where satan denied Jesus was the Son of God? Can you show me where satan denied Jesus came from God? Can you show me where satan denied Jesus came in the flesh? Can you show me where satan denied Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah, or the anointed one of God)?

I can think of one occasion where satan implicitly acknowledged Jesus was the Son of God (Mt. 4:3-6; Lk. 4:3-9). The gospels or Matthew and Luke also report multiple occasions when demons confessed Jesus was the Son of God (Mt. 8:29; Lk. 4:41). Presumably, if satan is telling Jesus to change rocks into bread and jump of the temple so angels will prevent him from being harm, this implies and acknowledgment of Jesus' flesh. Therefore, if satan is reported to have acknowledged Jesus was from God and came in the flesh then there is only his denial of Jesus as God's anointed one that would qualify satan as an antichrist.

Of course, the label "satan" means "adversary," so he was in that sense anti the Christ. Neither d should we think John's specified criteria is exhaustive.

Just saying

Well noticed. Satan and the demons that were commanded to depart their captives, knew precisely who Jesus was. They recognised His authority, they responded instantly to His voice, and knew that whatever purpose He came for, was unhealthy for them.
The word Antichrist does not only mean against. The word actually reveals how it is against... It is through displacing, replacing, the true Christ in the minds of anyone susceptible to deception. The word means instead of, in the room of... Christ. Naturally, replacing Christ and instituting a counterfeit would be an act of attention against Christ. And certainly, Satan would be behind and lending all the support he can for such an enterprise, but Satan Himself, although I believe he will impersonate Christ during the very last days, is not the Antichrist spoken of in scripture.
The Antichrist that the prophecies reveal is a specific entity described metaphorically in different ways, but all sharing the same characteristics. Little horn... Beast... Man of sin...
However, the specific characteristics or criteria we can glean from scripture are succinct, clear, time stamped, and peculiar to just one entity. Although some share some of those criteria, such as described in John and mentioned above revealing many Antichrists who don't believe Jesus came in the flesh etc, there is only one entity who meets all the criteria, and there are over 10. Once those criteria are laid out in order and explained, the identity of the principle Antichrist is obvious.
The question is, because so many people are so entrenched in their chosen hermeneutic, are they willing to open their eyes and hearts to different possibilities? In my experience on various forums going back over 20 years, the answer is generally no. But times are changing. The entity to which I refer is on the move. He's been around for a long time, and is ready to fulfil the last acts of defiance against God's real gospel, and establish his counterfeit and impose it upon the whole world. Sadly, scripture says that the whole world will wonder after him. Only a small remnant will oppose him. Joining such opposition will prove to be very uncomfortable, unpopular, open to ridicule and abuse, even from the church.
Just sayin'. Welcome to my world.

 

[Josheb]

There were many Antichrists after Christ came but the final Antichrist will be a Jew from the tribe of Dan who will reign for 3 and a half years. He will declare himself the Messiah. He will perform miracles and he will prosecute hard Jesus believers. Wait for the build of the new Solomon temple as a sign.

Oooo... interesting.

I'm inclined to agree the antichrist was a Jew, but how did you get to his being from Dan? How was his reign lasting 3.5 years reached? I am aware of the 2 Thes, 2:4's declaration the lawless man will oppose God and display himself as God, but how did you get to the antichrist declaring himself Messiah? Where does scripture explicitly report another future temple of stone will be built?

I'll appreciate it if the above inquiries are taken one at a time and the specific questions asked get answered. Thx in advance