Who and what is the antichrist?

[Marty]

I do agree with you. I was trying to highlight what scripture actually, literally, explicitly states. Then, after recognizing what is stated, determined what is implied. For example,


1 John 2:18-23
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 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. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.


John explicitly states he was writing during the "last hour." It's not the last day, the last days, the last time, the last times, the end of the age, or the ends of the ages. Those are the other temporal markers scripture uses. A day, a time, an age can all be a very, very long time and modern futurists make them extremely long lasting (two millennia or more). John is much more specific. The hour has come, and it is the last one. What justification in scripture would there be for making an hour last 2000+ years?

None.

It is the last hour. John did not say, "The last hour will be coming soon," or "The last hour will come." The last hour had arrived. So what? What's so important about the last hour?

The antichrist is coming.

Oh!

That is pretty important.

The last hour had come upon the first century readers of John's epistles; it was there when John wrote the letter. Many antichrist had already appeared. We read the word "have" but that "have is not present-tense to us, it is present-tense to the original author and his original audience. For those of us living 2000 years later, the "have" is past tense. Children in the 21st century, it was the last hour back in the first century, the antichrist was coming and many antichrists had appeared at that time way back then. The reason they knew it was the last hour is because the antichrists had appeared. Antichrists were going to come in the last hour, they had come and, therefore, everyone in John's first century readership knew the last hour had arrived.

These are things the text states. They are not implied by the text, they are stated by the text. No one has to read what is stated and ask, "What can I infer in addition to what is stated?" and no one should be asking themselves about any inferences until and unless what is explicitly stated is accepted and believed.

Where'd these antichrists come from?

According to John the "many antichrists" that had arrived, "went out from us, but they were not really of us," so who is the "us" to which John is referring? In other words, who is John's readership?

1 John 1:5-7
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

The "us" were those who have fellowship with God, walk in the Light, and whose sins have been cleansed by the blood of Christ. The antichrists were not really of that group. The text explicitly states they were not really of those cleansed by the blood. We can, therefore, infer they were poseurs because they had come from among those thusly cleansed but were not authentically so. Not really. If they had been authentically of those in John's readership who'd been cleansed by Christ's blood then they would have remained with the "us."

So, the antichrists were all former Christians .

Which also means they were humans. The text does not state that but if the antichrist came from those cleansed by the blood and those cleansed by the blood then the antichrists were humans. They weren't demons. If they were humans living in the first century during the last hour, then they have ALL died long ago and not a single one of them is alive today, 2000 years later. That is what the text itself implies. I don't need a doctrine to tell me that. Bare logic is sufficient.

What specifically was it that qualified those that had once been an inauthentic part of the "us," but weren't really, and had left? According to John, they could be recognized because they denied the Father and Son, and denied the Father and Son have each other. What is not explicitly stated but is implied is that they denied Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah or anointed one of prophecy).

• Many antichrists had come way back then in the first century.
• They came from among the Christians.
• They were not really Christians (they hadn't really been cleansed by Christ's blood).
• They were human.
• They denied the Son.
• The denied the Father.
• They denied the Father and Son have each other.
• They denied Jesus is the Christ.
• Because they had appeared, so too had the last hour.

John's first mention of "antichrist," covers all of the above explicitly. There is not warrant, nor any need to read anything more in the scripture. When I say there is not "warrant" in his letter for doing so I mean John says nothing indicating anything should be added. The idea something more is necessary or must be added to what he wrote comes from outside the text. It is extrabiblical, not biblical. For all of the above there is one antichrist in particular that was coming. Many had come. One in particular was coming in the last hour.

Did I miss anything? If so, please fill free to fill it in - just remember to stick to what is stated and what the text itself implies and NOT doctrinal interpretations adding to what the text states.


John goes on to mention the word "antichrist" one more time in this letter (1 Jn. 4:3). He uses the word a third time in his second letter (2 Jn. 1:7).

I'll let you exegete those mentions.

Yes this is very good and I agree especially in this text about antichrist that John wrote but I do believe that there is more in the other scriptures that mention antichrist.

If you read Johns gospel you will see that Jesus is repeatley stating that the Pharisees denied that He came from God and if they rejected Him they are also rejecting the Father. These are the very same descriptions that John uses in his other scriptures about the antichrist.

So it would also seam that there is a spirit of antichrist as John also mentions and apostate Israel fits that description.

Now what exactly was the antichrist to come and what was it the last hour of since false Christian’s have been in the church for the last two thousand years?

 

[Mr GLee]

John explicitly states he was writing during the "last hour." It's not the last day, the last days, the last time, the last times, the end of the age, or the ends of the ages. Those are the other temporal markers scripture uses. A day, a time, an age can all be a very, very long time and modern futurists make them extremely long lasting (two millennia or more). John is much more specific. The hour has come, and it is the last one. What justification in scripture would there be for making an hour last 2000+ years?

Yes, the word thousand is a metaphor used in parables the signifies understanding called the "hidden manna" in Revelation chapter 2:17 .

The words "last hour" are not used togethter, in fact not at all throughout the Bible . Hour simply a unknow "time period". Which could represent the last day under the Sun as the last day

The hour or time to come.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour (time period) knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour (time period) what ye shall speak.(anytime we preach )

Matthew 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day( time period) when he looketh not for him, and in an hour (time period) that he is not aware of,

Luke 10:21 In that hour (time period) Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

He uses to numbers be specific

Matthew 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, the word thousand is a metaphor used in parables the signifies understanding called the "hidden manna" in Revelation chapter 2:17 .

The words "last hour" are not used togethter, in fact not at all throughout the Bible . Hour simply a unknow "time period". Which could represent the last day under the Sun as the last day

The hour or time to come.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour (time period) knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour (time period) what ye shall speak.(anytime we preach )

Matthew 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day( time period) when he looketh not for him, and in an hour (time period) that he is not aware of,

Luke 10:21 In that hour (time period) Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

He uses to numbers be specific

Matthew 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

The point being the time specified is not one that can be construed to mean "more than two thousand years from now."

What I did not mention in Post #120 is the implicit urgency contained in John's letter. John and his original readers were expecting something, something very specific. If it did not happen back then, if it was not going to happen back then at the time they expected it then John was wrong. Whatever supposed inspiration of the Holy Spirit he had turned out to be wrong. Logically, and theologically, that cannot be. The Holy Spirit is never wrong. So, either John was not inspired, and he was wrong, or he was inspired and 100% correct. We'd have to ignore the implicit urgency in the quoted passage in order to make it about some future event that hasn't yet happened more than two millennia after John wrote to his original audience. In other words, we not only have to ignored what is explicitly stated in the text, we also have to ignore the original intent and understanding, the audience affiliation, and the implicit urgency.

Ignoring all of that is not good exegesis.

 

[Josheb]

Yes this is very good and I agree especially in this text about antichrist that John wrote but I do believe that there is more in the other scriptures that mention antichrist.

I was hoping you'd go over the remaining mentions in detail greater than the op, but I'll post it here.

1 John 4:1-6
Beloved, 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. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

• The spirit of the antichrist is that it does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh, and he came in the flesh from God. This is directly related to the preamble of John's gospel, but we're not exiting the epistle yet.
• The original readers of John's epistle had heard the antichrist was coming.
• The antichrist who'd they'd heard was coming was already in the world at the time John wrote the epistle. The antichrist himself, not merely the spirit of the antichrist, was in the world.
• John's original readers had overcome them (many had come, according to John's earlier statements in chapter 2).

This is what is explicitly stated. What is not stated is anything that could even remotely be interpreted to say John was writing about an individual that was not alive and present in the world at the time of his writing the epistle. Neither is there anything that could be interpreted to say the antichrist had Not come and was NOT in the world beck then but would come and be in the world more than 2000 years after he wrote his first epistle.

2 John 1:4-8
I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.


This passage is a curious one because it is not explicitly eschatological. John is writing to encourage and exhort godly living. John's emphasis on love runs throughout his letter but here in the opening of his second epistle he punctuates his exhortation to be loving with this one sentence about the antichrist. On this occasion what is emphasized is the antichrist is a deceiver who does not acknowledge Jesus came in the flesh. John again reiterates many had already come and the implicit urgency with which his original audience expected this antichrist. There is also, again, complete silence regarding the prospect the antichrist had not arrived, would not be someone the first century reader would experience or know about, and most definitely nothing in the text that could be interpreted to say the antichrist was coming twenty centuries later.

If you read Johns gospel you will see that Jesus is repeatley stating that the Pharisees denied that He came from God and if they rejected Him they are also rejecting the Father. These are the very same descriptions that John uses in his other scriptures about the antichrist.

So it would also seam that there is a spirit of antichrist as John also mentions and apostate Israel fits that description.

Now what exactly was the antichrist to come and what was it the last hour of since false Christian’s have been in the church for the last two thousand years?

Perhaps, but we're not there yet. I limited my comments and inquiries specifically and solely to the epistolary of John for intended reasons. The first is that John and only John is the only one who uses the word, "antichrist." No one else does that. We've seen how others baselessly conflate the antichrist with the AoD, lawless man, and beast and when asked to justify that practice respond with silence or ad hominem. Nothing in scripture explicitly treats these labels as synonymous or identical. Maybe a case for that can be made but not until what is stated about the antichrist is first established.

Yes, many of the Pharisees did deny Jesus' coming from God, however I would set the Sadducees ahead of the Pharisees in that context. Some of the Pharisees did acknowledge his divine origin (Nicodemus, for example) but there's no record of and Sadducee ever doing so. Yes, once we leave John's epistle, we'd want to next examine John's other writings before looking to Paul, James, Peter, or the author of Hebrews, but the fact remains John is the only one who explicitly used the term, "antichrist," and he used it only in his epistolary. What he wrote therein should be established before proceeding elsewhere.

Seven pages of posts and no one bothered to do that, even when offered in the opening post .

 

[Mr GLee]

The point being the time specified is not one that can be construed to mean "more than two thousand years from now."

What I did not mention in Post #120 is the implicit urgency contained in John's letter. John and his original readers were expecting something, something very specific. If it did not happen back then, if it was not going to happen back then at the time they expected it then John was wrong. Whatever supposed inspiration of the Holy Spirit he had turned out to be wrong. Logically, and theologically, that cannot be. The Holy Spirit is never wrong. So, either John was not inspired, and he was wrong, or he was inspired and 100% correct. We'd have to ignore the implicit urgency in the quoted passage in order to make it about some future event that hasn't yet happened more than two millennia after John wrote to his original audience. In other words, we not only have to ignored what is explicitly stated in the text, we also have to ignore the original intent and understanding, the audience affiliation, and the implicit urgency.

Ignoring all of that is not good exegesis.

Hi thanks ,

I would offer to be careful its not so much what we believe but how we believe who we say we do . it does not take way the simplicity of the gospel. God saves dying mankind

The word thousand is used in many parables the signified tongue, prophecy of God ,using the temporal things seen to represent the eternal gospel not seen. In a hope that believers would walk after the unseen thing of God ,by faith, the eternal things of God.

Right from the start Genesis the word "thousand" is used as a unknown. . purposely not revealed again in a hope that dying mankind would reach out to God walk by faith. Christ labor of love in us. . the unseen things of God

No sign were given to wonder after. Christ said it is a generation of unconverted mankind that seeks to wonder after signs .They have no faith coming from Christ that could please our invisible head .

Genesis 20:16And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reprove

Thousand = all a unknown )

Genesis 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Thousand = one seed (Christ) rescuing his bide form the gates of hell

Exodus 20:6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thousand = all of those who love the lord

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Thousand = as if . Not is


Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand yearst wice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Thousand =twice told

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Thousand = as if

When we look to the introduction verse 1 Christ set the standard interpretation law. Not only revealed but signified it, a figure of speech a parable .

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Called the hidden Manna (what is it?) in 2:17

I think the whole book called Revelation as the last chapter of sola scriptura is signified. An Invisible God using the temporal dying thing seen to reveal his gospel to new creatures

The parable chapter 20 is not any different. The signified figure of speech, parable not the literal what the eyes see and flesh feels Things of this world building blocks of false pride

I would think the focus is on how can we hear what the Spirit says to the churches as families of the world.

The word "thousand" (439 times) should be studied as to how it is used?

 

[Josheb]

Hi thanks ,

I would offer to be careful its not so much what we believe but how we believe who we say we do . it does not take way the simplicity of the gospel. God saves dying mankind

The word thousand is used in many parables the signified tongue, prophecy of God ,using the temporal things seen to represent the eternal gospel not seen. In a hope that believers would walk after the unseen thing of God ,by faith, the eternal things of God.

Right from the start Genesis the word "thousand" is used as a unknown. . purposely not revealed again in a hope that dying mankind would reach out to God walk by faith. Christ labor of love in us. . the unseen things of God

No sign were given to wonder after. Christ said it is a generation of unconverted mankind that seeks to wonder after signs .They have no faith coming from Christ that could please our invisible head .

Genesis 20:16And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reprove

Thousand = all a unknown )
Genesis 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Thousand = one seed (Christ) rescuing his bide form the gates of hell
Exodus 20:6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thousand = all of those who love the lord

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Thousand = as if . Not is


Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand yearst wice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Thousand =twice told

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Thousand = as if

When we look to the introduction verse 1 Christ set the standard interpretation law. Not only revealed but signified it, a figure of speech a parable .

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Called the hidden Manna (what is it?) in 2:17

I think the whole book called Revelation as the last chapter of sola scriptura is signified. An Invisible God using the temporal dying thing seen to reveal his gospel to new creatures

The parable chapter 20 is not any different. The signified figure of speech, parable not the literal what the eyes see and flesh feels Things of this world building blocks of false pride

I would think the focus is on how can we hear what the Spirit says to the churches as families of the world.

The word "thousand" (439 times) should be studied as to how it is used?

What does a thousand years have to do with identifying the antichrist?

 

[Mr GLee]

What does a thousand years have to do with identifying the antichrist?

It has to do with the word "last hour" which any time same way the word "today" is used to represent 24 /7.

Specific hours have numbers 1st hour, selfsame hour, very hour ,third hour , 6th hour, 9th hour

Etymology by etymonline . . . . . an hour;" poetically "time of year, season," from Greek hōra a word used to indicate any limited time within a year, month, or day

 

[Josheb]

It has to do with the word "last hour" which any time same way the word "today" is used to represent 24 /7. Specific hours have numbers 1st hour, selfsame hour, very hour ,third hour , 6th hour, 9th hour Etymology by etymonline . . . . . an hour;" poetically "time of year, season," from Greek hōra a word used to indicate any limited time within a year, month, or day

The salient point being it is not a period of time lasting multiple millennia.

 

[Mr GLee]

The salient point being it is not a period of time lasting multiple millennia.

The word Thousand represents a unknowable the golden measure (unknowable) . Not a literal number or measure of dying mankind

No need to know .No sign were given to wonder after.

We understand the unseen things of God by his faithfulness. A work that Emanuel works in us. with us. that have no power of are own .

Bypasses the first literal thousand should raise a red flag. Past the second two flags

God does not number literal days or people rather than moving men to walk by His faith .trusting the unseen things of God .

 

[Josheb]

The word Thousand represents a unknowable the golden measure (unknowable) . Not a literal number or measure of dying mankind

No need to know .No sign were given to wonder after.

We understand the unseen things of God by his faithfulness. A work that Emanuel works in us. with us. that have no power of are own .

Bypasses the first literal thousand should raise a red flag. Past the second two flags

God does not number literal days or people rather than moving men to walk by His faith .trusting the unseen things of God .

And how does that help identify the antichrist?

 

[Mr GLee]

And how does that help identify the antichrist?

Antichrist. . false teaching authroity. The god of this world called a legion working in many false prophets, false apostles antichrists' (plural)

Antichrist are false teachers , false apostles, bringing. false prophecies. . the oral traditons of dying mankind making his tradition (sola scriptura ) without effect.

The thousand is not a literal measure but a golden measure. . a unknown

The Amil position works the best

 

[Josheb]

Antichrist. . false teaching authroity. The god of this world called a legion working in many false prophets, false apostles antichrists' (plural)

Antichrist are false teachers , false apostles, bringing. false prophecies. . the oral traditons of dying mankind making his tradition (sola scriptura ) without effect.

The thousand is not a literal measure but a golden measure. . a unknown

The Amil position works the best

I agree. How does that answer my question?

 

[Marty]

I was hoping you'd go over the remaining mentions in detail greater than the op, but I'll post it here.

1 John 4:1-6
Beloved, 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. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

• The spirit of the antichrist is that it does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh, and he came in the flesh from God. This is directly related to the preamble of John's gospel, but we're not exiting the epistle yet.
• The original readers of John's epistle had heard the antichrist was coming.
• The antichrist who'd they'd heard was coming was already in the world at the time John wrote the epistle. The antichrist himself, not merely the spirit of the antichrist, was in the world.
• John's original readers had overcome them (many had come, according to John's earlier statements in chapter 2).

This is what is explicitly stated. What is not stated is anything that could even remotely be interpreted to say John was writing about an individual that was not alive and present in the world at the time of his writing the epistle. Neither is there anything that could be interpreted to say the antichrist had Not come and was NOT in the world beck then but would come and be in the world more than 2000 years after he wrote his first epistle.

2 John 1:4-8
I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.


This passage is a curious one because it is not explicitly eschatological. John is writing to encourage and exhort godly living. John's emphasis on love runs throughout his letter but here in the opening of his second epistle he punctuates his exhortation to be loving with this one sentence about the antichrist. On this occasion what is emphasized is the antichrist is a deceiver who does not acknowledge Jesus came in the flesh. John again reiterates many had already come and the implicit urgency with which his original audience expected this antichrist. There is also, again, complete silence regarding the prospect the antichrist had not arrived, would not be someone the first century reader would experience or know about, and most definitely nothing in the text that could be interpreted to say the antichrist was coming twenty centuries later.

Perhaps, but we're not there yet. I limited my comments and inquiries specifically and solely to the epistolary of John for intended reasons. The first is that John and only John is the only one who uses the word, "antichrist." No one else does that. We've seen how others baselessly conflate the antichrist with the AoD, lawless man, and beast and when asked to justify that practice respond with silence or ad hominem. Nothing in scripture explicitly treats these labels as synonymous or identical. Maybe a case for that can be made but not until what is stated about the antichrist is first established.

Yes, many of the Pharisees did deny Jesus' coming from God, however I would set the Sadducees ahead of the Pharisees in that context. Some of the Pharisees did acknowledge his divine origin (Nicodemus, for example) but there's no record of and Sadducee ever doing so. Yes, once we leave John's epistle, we'd want to next examine John's other writings before looking to Paul, James, Peter, or the author of Hebrews, but the fact remains John is the only one who explicitly used the term, "antichrist," and he used it only in his epistolary. What he wrote therein should be established before proceeding elsewhere.

Seven pages of posts and no one bothered to do that, even when offered in the opening post .

Yes ame great post i'll add when I can thanks

 

[Marty]

I was hoping you'd go over the remaining mentions in detail greater than the op, but I'll post it here.

1 John 4:1-6
Beloved, 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. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

• The spirit of the antichrist is that it does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh, and he came in the flesh from God. This is directly related to the preamble of John's gospel, but we're not exiting the epistle yet.
• The original readers of John's epistle had heard the antichrist was coming.
• The antichrist who'd they'd heard was coming was already in the world at the time John wrote the epistle. The antichrist himself, not merely the spirit of the antichrist, was in the world.
• John's original readers had overcome them (many had come, according to John's earlier statements in chapter 2).

This is what is explicitly stated. What is not stated is anything that could even remotely be interpreted to say John was writing about an individual that was not alive and present in the world at the time of his writing the epistle. Neither is there anything that could be interpreted to say the antichrist had Not come and was NOT in the world beck then but would come and be in the world more than 2000 years after he wrote his first epistle.

2 John 1:4-8
I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father. Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.


This passage is a curious one because it is not explicitly eschatological. John is writing to encourage and exhort godly living. John's emphasis on love runs throughout his letter but here in the opening of his second epistle he punctuates his exhortation to be loving with this one sentence about the antichrist. On this occasion what is emphasized is the antichrist is a deceiver who does not acknowledge Jesus came in the flesh. John again reiterates many had already come and the implicit urgency with which his original audience expected this antichrist. There is also, again, complete silence regarding the prospect the antichrist had not arrived, would not be someone the first century reader would experience or know about, and most definitely nothing in the text that could be interpreted to say the antichrist was coming twenty centuries later.

Perhaps, but we're not there yet. I limited my comments and inquiries specifically and solely to the epistolary of John for intended reasons. The first is that John and only John is the only one who uses the word, "antichrist." No one else does that. We've seen how others baselessly conflate the antichrist with the AoD, lawless man, and beast and when asked to justify that practice respond with silence or ad hominem. Nothing in scripture explicitly treats these labels as synonymous or identical. Maybe a case for that can be made but not until what is stated about the antichrist is first established.

Yes, many of the Pharisees did deny Jesus' coming from God, however I would set the Sadducees ahead of the Pharisees in that context. Some of the Pharisees did acknowledge his divine origin (Nicodemus, for example) but there's no record of and Sadducee ever doing so. Yes, once we leave John's epistle, we'd want to next examine John's other writings before looking to Paul, James, Peter, or the author of Hebrews, but the fact remains John is the only one who explicitly used the term, "antichrist," and he used it only in his epistolary. What he wrote therein should be established before proceeding elsewhere.

Seven pages of posts and no one bothered to do that, even when offered in the opening post .

Thanks again for your input on this it's very good.

What I see is that apostate Israel was the perfect example of the antichrist that Jesus taught in John's gospel.

Then to expand on what else the antichrist is (after Jesus' death and resurrection) John also reveals to us in his epistles.

The antichrist or better yet the spirit of antichrist infiltrated the church and brought about Gnosticism.

But what exactly did John mean by the last hour?

 

[Josheb]

Thanks again for your input on this it's very good.

What I see is that apostate Israel was the perfect example of the antichrist that Jesus taught in John's gospel.

Then to expand on what else the antichrist is (after Jesus' death and resurrection) John also reveals to us in his epistles.

The antichrist or better yet the spirit of antichrist infiltrated the church and brought about Gnosticism.

But what exactly did John mean by the last hour?

I'm inclined to think the antichrist was one of the Jewish Zealot leaders. As Jewish Zealots they denied Jesus, they denied he came from God, denied he came from God in the flesh, etc. They were the messiahs of Israel! They mocked God, abused the Law and took upon themselves the role of Judge of men so egregiously they sacrificed humans in the temple. Simon Bar Giora, John of Giscala, and Eleazor ben Simon all meet John's criteria. They were the first century Jewish versions of folks like Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Hibatullah Akhundzada (purist Islamic jihadi zealots).

Most folks look to Rome, but Jerusalem is the focus of prophecy.

 

[Marty]

I'm inclined to think the antichrist was one of the Jewish Zealot leaders. As Jewish Zealots they denied Jesus, they denied he came from God, denied he came from God in the flesh, etc. They were the messiahs of Israel! They mocked God, abused the Law and took upon themselves the role of Judge of men so egregiously they sacrificed humans in the temple. Simon Bar Giora, John of Giscala, and Eleazor ben Simon all meet John's criteria. They were the first century Jewish versions of folks like Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Hibatullah Akhundzada (purist Islamic jihadi zealots).

Most folks look to Rome, but Jerusalem is the focus of prophecy.

Yes I believe that Babylon the great is Jerusalem and the last hour may of been the end of the age the temple and sacrificial age which ended with the fall of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70AD

 

[3 Resurrections]

I'm inclined to think the antichrist was one of the Jewish Zealot leaders. As Jewish Zealots they denied Jesus, they denied he came from God, denied he came from God in the flesh, etc. They were the messiahs of Israel! They mocked God, abused the Law and took upon themselves the role of Judge of men so egregiously they sacrificed humans in the temple. Simon Bar Giora, John of Giscala, and Eleazor ben Simon all meet John's criteria. They were the first century Jewish versions of folks like Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Hibatullah Akhundzada (purist Islamic jihadi zealots).

Most folks look to Rome, but Jerusalem is the focus of prophecy.

In your list of Jewish Zealot leaders, you neglected to mention the first Zealot leader who got into the temple, dressed as the king of the Jews in Herod's royal regalia which he stole from Masada. Menahem was the first Zealot leader to claim being "King of the Jews" in the temple itself in this fashion, in AD 66, just as the Zealot rebellion cranked up. Menahem "exalted himself" over every other Zealot leader trying to call themselves the prophesied "Messiah the Prince", which Daniel 9:25 had predicted would come. "King of the Jews" was the title that truly belonged only to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Anyone claiming that title along with the Messiah role was essentially claiming to be God Himself.

This is what Paul's prophesied "Man of Lawlessness" was going to do - an individual which the Thessalonians knew was already in existence at the time, being then restrained at the time from being openly manifested. The scripture title of "the Lawless" was given to the Zealot insurrectionists who were trying to instigate a national rebellion against Rome n those days. Christ was prophesied to be numbered with the "Lawless" in His death; that prophecy being fulfilled when the two Zealot insurrectionist thieves were crucified on either side of Christ. The "Man of Lawlessness" was a first-century Zealot leader. This was "The Antichrist" who gained success briefly in AD 66 by "exalting himself" over every other Zealot leader who was aspiring to the Messiah role before he was destroyed by yet another Zealot leader.

The Antichrist individual has been grossly exaggerated out of all proportion to the way scripture describes his actions and his brief time in power posing as Daniel's Messiah the Prince.

O

 

[Mr GLee]

I'm inclined to think the antichrist was one of the Jewish Zealot leaders. As Jewish Zealots they denied Jesus, they denied he came from God, denied he came from God in the flesh, etc. They were the messiahs of Israel! They mocked God, abused the Law and took upon themselves the role of Judge of men so egregiously they sacrificed humans in the temple. Simon Bar Giora, John of Giscala, and Eleazor ben Simon all meet John's criteria. They were the first century Jewish versions of folks like Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Hibatullah Akhundzada (purist Islamic jihadi zealots).

Most folks look to Rome, but Jerusalem is the focus of prophecy.

I would offer.

No signs were given to wonder after, .Jesus said the generation of natural unconverted mankind seeks after sign .they have no hearing from prophecy . . . its out of sight out of mind the pagan foundation

The antichrists (singular). Satan the antichrist another teaching authority "oral traditons of dying mankind" other than sola scriptura

Satan the spirit of lies working in antichrists a legion as false apostles Sent by the antichrist (singular) with false prophecy as lies oral traditions of dying mankind

Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. (false apostles)

How many? . . as many as he deceived as the god of this world

Satan would have mankind beleive. anti-christ (singular)and antichrists (legion) all one in the same dying mankind .in some sort of scuccasion .
Legion as Satan the king of lying signs to wonder after His voice in the garden . " Certainly you will not die look at my beauty and live. why believe in a God not seen " (the fall of mankind) . worshiping the dying things seen the temporal above the unseen eternal Creator as it is written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura) Called the wrath of God in Romans 1 Worshiping the temporal dying.seen and not the unseen things of faith the eternal.

No sign was given to wonder after .Believers have prophecy till the end of time.

Peter was used in Mathew 16 to show the work of the two. Satan the anti christ giving lying words with power to deceive to Peter. . . one of the many antichrists' false teachers. who then rebukd the Lord of glory and forbid the Son of man jesus from doing the will of the unseen Holy Father .

Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus .Peter learned his lesson to not venerate the flesh of dying mankind above the invisible Faithful Creator .God is not a man as us never could be.

 

[Josheb]

In your list of Jewish Zealot leaders, you neglected to mention the first Zealot leader who got into the temple, dressed as the king of the Jews in Herod's royal regalia which he stole from Masada. Menahem was the first Zealot leader to claim being "King of the Jews" in the temple itself in this fashion, in AD 66, just as the Zealot rebellion cranked up. Menahem "exalted himself" over every other Zealot leader trying to call themselves the prophesied "Messiah the Prince", which Daniel 9:25 had predicted would come. "King of the Jews" was the title that truly belonged only to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Anyone claiming that title along with the Messiah role was essentially claiming to be God Himself.

This is what Paul's prophesied "Man of Lawlessness" was going to do - an individual which the Thessalonians knew was already in existence at the time, being then restrained at the time from being openly manifested. The scripture title of "the Lawless" was given to the Zealot insurrectionists who were trying to instigate a national rebellion against Rome n those days. Christ was prophesied to be numbered with the "Lawless" in His death; that prophecy being fulfilled when the two Zealot insurrectionist thieves were crucified on either side of Christ. The "Man of Lawlessness" was a first-century Zealot leader. This was "The Antichrist" who gained success briefly in AD 66 by "exalting himself" over every other Zealot leader who was aspiring to the Messiah role before he was destroyed by yet another Zealot leader.

The Antichrist individual has been grossly exaggerated out of all proportion to the way scripture describes his actions and his brief time in power posing as Daniel's Messiah the Prince.

O

Yes, I'll add him to the list for future reference.

The point being there are multiple options for identifying he antichrist in a way that doesn't require us to ignore the audience affiliations and temporal markers contained in John's epistles. I was tempted to weigh in on the AoD and MoL because Jerusalem instead of Rome is the better viewpoint, but this op is about the antichrist, and I don't want to support or hypocritically practice the chronic change of topic so common in these threads.

 

[Josheb]

I would offer.

No signs were given to wonder after

Yes, there were.

, .Jesus said the generation of natural unconverted mankind seeks after sign .

No, he didn't.

they have no hearing from prophecy . . . its out of sight out of mind the pagan foundation

Yes, but that's non sequitur.

The antichrists (singular). Satan the antichrist another teaching authority "oral traditons of dying mankind" other than sola scriptura

Satan is nt the antichrist. That view was decisively addressed and soundly refuted earlier in the thread. Satan does NOT meet John's specified criteria.

Satan the spirit of lies working in antichrists a legion as false apostles

Perhaps, but that is extra-scriptural and the more likely explanation is sin, not Satan.

Sent by the antichrist (singular) with false prophecy as lies oral traditions of dying mankind

Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. (false apostles)

That verse does not state the antichrist was sent by Satan.

How many? . . as many as he deceived as the god of this world

No.

Satan would have mankind beleive.......

Hodgepodge of misused scripture.


The antichrist John's readers expected was a person living during their era and while it is logically possible that person was possessed by one or many demons, scripture silent on that matter. Whether possessed or not, the man was sinful and thereby just as dead and enslaved as Satan.

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Sin enslaves (Jn. 8:34).

Satan is just as dead and enslaved as any human who has disobeyed God. God is in charge. God is in charge of Satan; he is not a free agent. God decided the antichrist, not the sinfully dead and enslaved creature, Satan. Satan is just another minion who accomplished nothing more than what God has decided. Same as the antichrist.