Originally posted by galveston75Certainly ! It is an easy assumption to make that the Great God Satan has read this book of revelation and sees how Satan loses in the end. Given that, Satan would logically want to prevent the rise of this anti-christ person and god would work for the rise of this anti-christ. This could be a CIA plot.
Interesting but are you saying that God had something to do with the antichrist or ones opposing him coming into existance?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94145
Originally posted by galveston75Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Revelations than me can help, but I think it is generally thought that the Roman emperor Nero was considered by early christians (and so the New Testament) to be the anti-Christ, due to the persecutions following the great fire of rome in AD64.
2 John: 7 says: Many decievers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deciever and antichrist.
( This shows more then one. )
When would they be doing this?
1 John 4:3 says: Every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus, does not originate with God. Futhermore, this is the an ...[text shortened]... his position. Also does not execpt his Kingdom and would mistreat him or any of his followers.
Nero's name can be numerically equated to the number 666 (in Aramaic, I believe), and it has been suggested that it was through this use of code that early christians hid their views from the Roman establishment.
There's one idea, anyway...
Originally posted by galveston75====================
2 John: 7 says: Many decievers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deciever and antichrist.
( This shows more then one. )
When would they be doing this?
1 John 4:3 says: Every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus, does not originate with God. Futhermore, this is the an his position. Also does not execpt his Kingdom and would mistreat him or any of his followers.
Every inspired expression
========================
"Every spirit" - "every inspired expression" is a rather loose paraphrase.
But the phrase as John uses it here is a little problematic to me.
I have to research to see if he means the human spirit. Or perhaps he means the human spirit and any spiritual being.
Demons are evil spirits and were seen utilizing humans to speak their malicious and evil things in the Gospels. Ie. demon possession.
In principle an antichrist belief is any belief that denies some aspect of what Jesus Christ is.
To teach that Jesus is not God incarnate is definitely an antichrist teaching.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate.
Some of the ancients denied that Christ was a real man. They believed He was too good to be truly a man. They taught that Christ must have been a phantasm and did not come in the flesh. In principle these were antichrists John writes.
To deny that Jesus was truly a man or even now is not still a man, is to put forth an antichrist doctrine.
Conversly, to deny that Jesus was God come in the flesh is also an antichrist doctrine. Arius and Russell taught an antichrist doctrine, not because they denied Jesus came in the flesh, but because they denied that Jesus was God come in the flesh (John 1:1,14).
Originally posted by jaywillThe Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate - jaywill
In principle an antichrist belief is any belief that denies some aspect of what Jesus Christ is.
To teach that Jesus is not God incarnate is definitely an antichrist teaching.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate.
Some of the ancients denied that Christ was a real man. They believed He was ...[text shortened]... n the flesh, but because they denied that Jesus was God come in the flesh [b](John 1:1,14).[/b]
how is that? Christ literally means anointed one, not God incarnate!
secondly it is a well known and established fact that the trinity is of pre Christian and pagan in origin, was adopted into the apostate church and has remained dogma ever since, the fact of which is, when pressed for an explanation, you must resort to terms like 'experience', and 'mystery'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think I said that in principle, an antichrist doctrine is to deny ANY ASPECT of what Christ IS as revealed in the word of God.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate - jaywill
how is that? Christ literally means anointed one, not God incarnate!
One aspect of who Christ is is that He is a Man. If you teach as some did that Christ is not a man, that denies AN apsect of what Christ is, as revealed in the Bible. It is an antichrist teaching.
Another aspect of what Christ is is that He is the Spirit. If some evangelicals decide that they want to deny that Christ is the Spirit, that is in priniciple an antichrist teaching. It denies SOME aspect of what Christ is.
Another person may want to deny that Christ is the Redeemer. They may say He was just a wise example of a good man, a humanitarian model for us all to imitate. But the Bible teaches He is the Lamb of God who accomplished redemption of sinners with His shed blood. So to deny this revelation of Christ is in principle an antichrist teaching.'
It is the same with denying that Christ is God become a man.
Whatever the Bible teaches is an aspect of Christ we should not deny.
To deny an aspect because of our preferences is to teach an antichrist teaching.
Originally posted by jaywillno Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
I think I said that in principle, an antichrist doctrine is to deny ANY ASPECT of what Christ IS as revealed in the word of God.
One aspect of who Christ is is that He is a Man. If you teach as some did that Christ is not a man, that denies AN apsect of what Christ is, as revealed in the Bible. It is an antichrist teaching.
Another aspect of what ld not deny.
To deny an aspect because of our preferences is to teach an antichrist teaching.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie================================
no Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
no Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
======================================
It is not that it cannot be discerned. It may be that one refuses to believe.
Christ is God and Man. Antichrist belief says that instead of this He is something else.
If the Bible says Christ is the Alpha and the Omega but I want only to teach that He is the Omega, that is an antichrist teaching.
If I want to teach that God is the First and the Last as seen in Isaiah, but Jesus Christ is some kind of secondary first and last, not truly the First and the Last, that is an antichrist teaching.
So when the Bible says that the Word was God and the Word obviously refers to Christ, and you want to teach that the Word was not God ... you have an antichrist teaching.
Instead of Him being what the Bible says you want to teach that He is SOMETHING ELSE.
Originally posted by jaywillno, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it? we accept all the other attributes? Christ was the messiah, Christ is our redeemer, Christ was born of a virgin, Christ is our high priest etc etc etc but this thing we cannot accept, on the basis of our scriptural understanding and so we are anti christ? i don't think so!
[b]================================
no Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
======================================
It is not that it cannot be discerned. It may be that one refuses to believe.
...[text shortened]... ching.
Instead of Him being what the Bible says you want to teach that He is SOMETHING ELSE.[/b]
The Scripture says "Now the Lord is the Spirit"( 2 Cor. 3:17). If some evangelical Christian is concerned that this will confuse the Trinity so thay teach that the Lord Jesus is NOT the Spirit, that is an antichrist teaching.
Isaiah says that the Son is called Eternal Father. If some evangelical is afraid that this will not keep the Father and the Son sufficiently separated, and thus denies that the Son is the Father, that is an antichrist teaching.
IF you deny Christ is a MAN - antichrist teaching.
If you deny Christ is GOD - antichrist teaching.
If you deny Christ is the Son of God obedient and submissive to the Father, sent by the Father, prayed to the Father and raised by the Father as Oneness Penticostalisn wants to do, you also have an antichrist teaching.
If you are afraid that you will contradict yourself by saying Christ is X as well as Y, and you deny one of the aspects, you have an antichrist teaching. You deny SOME ASPECT of that the Bible says Christ is. In doing that you make Him something ELSE instead.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=========================
no, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it? we accept all the other attributes? Christ was the messiah, Christ is our redeemer, Christ was born of a virgin, Christ is our high priest etc etc etc but this thing we cannot accept, on the basis of our scriptural understanding and so we are anti christ? i don't think so!
no, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it?
==================================
That is hard to answer. Maybe because someone does not want to submit to Christ as God.
Maybe because one wants to keep God far away in some sense of rightoues piety. "I am better because I keep Jehovah high and uplifted and do not bring Him down to be a mere man, low, obedient. I exalt Jehovah so much that he CANNOT be a man."
In this case this is a kind of rebellion. It is very similar to the rebellion of the chief priests and Pharisees - "Who can forgive sins but God only ?"
There is not much difference in the two kinds of revolts. One says we will persecute Jesus because we do not believe that a mere man can forgive sins as God alone does.
The other says, we will make Jesus an archangel instead because we don't believe that the Word could be with God and God at the same time.
==========================
we accept all the other attributes? Christ was the messiah, Christ is our redeemer, Christ was born of a virgin, Christ is our high priest etc etc etc but this thing we cannot accept, on the basis of our scriptural understanding and so we are anti christ? i don't think so!
============================
Instead of the Word Who was God you rebell. Instead of that you decide to teach He is something else - Michael the archangel.
An antichrist teaching. "Instead of THIS apsect of what Christ is, we decide to substitute something ELSE."
Originally posted by jaywillyes but this shows what nonsense it is, for we are not substituting anything else! no aspect, no attribute. Christ was the son of God, the Messiah, end of story. it is you people who have elevated him, through your adoration, to the same position as the Almighty, something which he himself never even dared to consider.
[b]=========================
no, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it?
==================================
That is hard to answer. Maybe because someone does not want to submit to Christ as God.
Maybe because one ng. "Instead of THIS apsect of what Christ is, we decide to substitute something ELSE."[/b]
The Bible says "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Now suppose I am a Baptist minister and I think "But if I teach that Christ became the Spirit then someone may think I teach Modalism. They may accuse me of tampering with the separated Persons, Christ being one and the Holy Spirit being the Other. So I better say Christ did not become the life giving Spirit. He is something else."
In principle that is an antichrist teaching even though it is put forth by a dear Christian brother.
If you are afraid that you will confuse the three "separated Pesons" and therefore deny some aspect of that Christ is revealed to be - you have an antichrist teaching.
On the other hand suppose I want to teach Christ is only the Spirit and is not now a MAN ?
Another antichrist teaching. You put down one aspect and proclaim another. You cannot accept both. If you do not accept both you teach Christ is something ELSE from what the word of God reveals He is.
Originally posted by jaywillI have no problem with Christ being a life giving Spirit, none whatsoever, it is a biblical teaching, but your argument Jay, and i say this sincerely, has as its basis a false premise, that the three are one and equal, therefore, that Christ himself never taught it, nor is it explicitly taught with any clarity in scripture, it cannot therefore be deemed to be anything remotely resembling an anti-Christ teaching. the most that you can state, with any certainty, is that it becomes the realms of theology, for its basis is in a conjecture, pure and utter!
The Bible says [b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Now suppose I am a Baptist minister and I think "But if I teach that Christ became the Spirit then someone may think I teach Modalism. They may accuse me of tampering with the seprated Persons Christ being one and the Holy Spirit being the Other. So I better say Christ did n efore deny some aspect of that Christ is revealed to be - you have an antichrist teaching.[/b]