When will the antiChrist reveal himself to the world?

5,266 Views | 69 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by AgLiving06
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Then sure, Nero fits, Saul fits, Peter fits, if you get down to it, we all fit because we've all done things "against God."

Yep, as Jesus said, NONE are good.

From Mark 10
[url=https://www.bible.com/bible/97/MRK.10.17.MSG][/url]As he went out into the street, a man came running up, greeted him with great reverence, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to get eternal life?" Jesus said, "Why are you calling me good? No one is good, only God

[url=https://www.bible.com/bible/97/MRK.10.17.MSG][/url]
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

And from everything I've read the idea that trans minors are being allowed to have elective gender reassignment surgery is a myth. It just isn't happening in this country. And I'm fine with that too.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

AgLiving06 said:

Nero doesn't fit as "the antichrist"

2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.


Whoever "the antichrist" is will come from within the Church. That's the reason the consensus thought it was the Pope during the time of the Reformation.

However, if the discussion is about the multitude of antichrists that John discusses:

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

Then sure, Nero fits, Saul fits, Peter fits, if you get down to it, we all fit because we've all done things "against God."

Where exactly in scripture do you glean that the last/final Antichrist will come from within the Church? To be the antichrist and fit the only 4 scriptures that specifically mention the antichrist merely states that they do not confess that Jesus is The Christ/God and denies his coming in the flesh.
The old tire idea that it was the Pope was born solely out of the reformation and the need for Protestants to have some big emphasis to draw people to them and away from the Church and provide comfort that they made the right decision to split from Christ's Church. It has zero basis in scripture or reality. Besides, the Popes, throughout history and despite their human mistakes have always confessed the divinity of Jesus. The bible doesn't say the Antichrist will publicly profess their faith but secretly not really believe it. The whole point is that they will publicly lead people away from faith in Christ.

Peter does not fit the description of the Antichrist. John 4 gives practical tests.
My theory is that the anti-Christ will be Jewish or will claim to be Jewish and will announce to Israel that he is their messiah and they will accept and worship him. Satan has been described as a counterfeiter. He counterfeits what God has done in order to mislead people.

While I don't believe that the anti-Christ will have any relationship with the Catholic Church, I certainly suspect that the Catholic Church will embrace, support, and worship him.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TSJ said:

How fortuitous, Lord of Spirits just did an episode on the antichrist.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lord-of-spirits/id1531206254?i=1000616421176

It's 3 hrs but at the clip M1 is responding he should have plenty of time to listen.
Did you listen to all of it? What is the speaker's most noteworthy statement?
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

...a small but significant number of children are born as intersex and display both male and female characteristics. Sex assignment surgery for intersex kids is relatively common in those cases.
I believe that you are saying that they are born with a defect affecting their sexual organs and that surgery is sometimes needed to fix the birth defect. You're not suggesting that they are born as another gender. Is my understanding correct?
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

BluHorseShu said:

AgLiving06 said:

Nero doesn't fit as "the antichrist"

2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.


Whoever "the antichrist" is will come from within the Church. That's the reason the consensus thought it was the Pope during the time of the Reformation.

However, if the discussion is about the multitude of antichrists that John discusses:

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

Then sure, Nero fits, Saul fits, Peter fits, if you get down to it, we all fit because we've all done things "against God."

Where exactly in scripture do you glean that the last/final Antichrist will come from within the Church? To be the antichrist and fit the only 4 scriptures that specifically mention the antichrist merely states that they do not confess that Jesus is The Christ/God and denies his coming in the flesh.
The old tire idea that it was the Pope was born solely out of the reformation and the need for Protestants to have some big emphasis to draw people to them and away from the Church and provide comfort that they made the right decision to split from Christ's Church. It has zero basis in scripture or reality. Besides, the Popes, throughout history and despite their human mistakes have always confessed the divinity of Jesus. The bible doesn't say the Antichrist will publicly profess their faith but secretly not really believe it. The whole point is that they will publicly lead people away from faith in Christ.

Peter does not fit the description of the Antichrist. John 4 gives practical tests.
My theory is that the anti-Christ will be Jewish or will claim to be Jewish and will announce to Israel that he is their messiah and they will accept and worship him. Satan has been described as a counterfeiter. He counterfeits what God has done in order to mislead people.

While I don't believe that the anti-Christ will have any relationship with the Catholic Church, I certainly suspect that the Catholic Church will embrace, support, and worship him.
And what makes you suspect that?
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Regarding the Layla Jane story, there's not much info publicly available. I see the lawsuit but I'm curious what the truth behind it is. I'm skeptical. If trans minors are being allowed in any significant numbers to have sex reassignment surgery where is this happening? Everywhere it's accused doctors and nurses come forward insist it isn't. It might happen very rarely with other extenuating circumstances but in otherwise there should be more evidence that we're not seeing.

And extenuating circumstances might be something like intersex kids and the issues that affect them. Look it up if you aren't familiar. Sex and gender are far more complicated at the edges than the strict XY/XX, male/female molds some people think everything has to fall in. And these issues aren't really that uncommon.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

M1Buckeye said:

BluHorseShu said:

AgLiving06 said:

Nero doesn't fit as "the antichrist"

2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.


Whoever "the antichrist" is will come from within the Church. That's the reason the consensus thought it was the Pope during the time of the Reformation.

However, if the discussion is about the multitude of antichrists that John discusses:

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

Then sure, Nero fits, Saul fits, Peter fits, if you get down to it, we all fit because we've all done things "against God."

Where exactly in scripture do you glean that the last/final Antichrist will come from within the Church? To be the antichrist and fit the only 4 scriptures that specifically mention the antichrist merely states that they do not confess that Jesus is The Christ/God and denies his coming in the flesh.
The old tire idea that it was the Pope was born solely out of the reformation and the need for Protestants to have some big emphasis to draw people to them and away from the Church and provide comfort that they made the right decision to split from Christ's Church. It has zero basis in scripture or reality. Besides, the Popes, throughout history and despite their human mistakes have always confessed the divinity of Jesus. The bible doesn't say the Antichrist will publicly profess their faith but secretly not really believe it. The whole point is that they will publicly lead people away from faith in Christ.

Peter does not fit the description of the Antichrist. John 4 gives practical tests.
My theory is that the anti-Christ will be Jewish or will claim to be Jewish and will announce to Israel that he is their messiah and they will accept and worship him. Satan has been described as a counterfeiter. He counterfeits what God has done in order to mislead people.

While I don't believe that the anti-Christ will have any relationship with the Catholic Church, I certainly suspect that the Catholic Church will embrace, support, and worship him.
And what makes you suspect that?
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
New International Version
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

To my knowledge, the only place that God has ever had a temple is in Jerusalem. Also, the focus of the Bible has always been on God's chosen people, the Jews. I think it's a likely possibility that the anti-Christ will claim to be not only the messiah of the Jews but of ALL the world and he will perform miracles and feats that convince most of the world that he is, indeed, God!

That is why, my brother, you must focus on the scriptures and be skeptical of anything and everything that is NOT found in the original scriptures.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

Sex and gender are far more complicated at the edges than the strict XY/XX, male/female molds some people think everything has to fall in. And these issues aren't really that uncommon.

There are people who claim that such defects render one a new gender. I disagree. There is no more a new gender than a person born with six fingers is a new species.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

When I see things like this, I can't help but think the restraints are being gradually released and that the antiChrist and his "Beast" system aren't far off.

Revelation 13:20 esv
So that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.









I believe that the following verse from the apostle Paul is describing the Holy Spirit restraining Satan until the last days, which I believe we are approaching, based on what I'm seeing going on in the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
I just noticed what is interesting 2 Thessalonians 2:15about the verse you mention above (2 Thessalonians). As Catholics, we believe 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is supportive of the importance of the traditions handed down, by word or epistle...And this verse is references how important it is because of the previous verses in the same chapter where Paul is warning of the 'man of lawlessness' and how we can guard against him.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

M1Buckeye said:

When I see things like this, I can't help but think the restraints are being gradually released and that the antiChrist and his "Beast" system aren't far off.

Revelation 13:20 esv
So that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.









I believe that the following verse from the apostle Paul is describing the Holy Spirit restraining Satan until the last days, which I believe we are approaching, based on what I'm seeing going on in the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
I just noticed what is interesting 2 Thessalonians 2:15about the verse you mention above (2 Thessalonians). As Catholics, we believe 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is supportive of the importance of the traditions handed down, by word or epistle...And this verse is references how important it is because of the previous verses in the same chapter where Paul is warning of the 'man of lawlessness' and how we can guard against him.

Paul also said...

1 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I'm going to stick with the word of God. If you want to place your belief in something some guy said in 450 AD, that's your choice, but I don't recommend it.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
Why? I agree that it's offensive but that's why it should be shared so that people can be aware of what the Washington Establishment stands for these days. The Establishment-serving media isn't going to share these images with the masses.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
Why? I agree that it's offensive but that's why it should be shared so that people can be aware of what the Washington Establishment stands for these days. The Establishment-serving media isn't going to share these images with the masses.
There's more than enough degeneracy displayed in the other tweets to make your point, and I'd rather not see bewbs when I login to texags... lead us not into temptation etc
M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
Why? I agree that it's offensive but that's why it should be shared so that people can be aware of what the Washington Establishment stands for these days. The Establishment-serving media isn't going to share these images with the masses.
There's more than enough degeneracy displayed in the other tweets to make your point, and I'd rather not see bewbs when I login to texags... lead us not into temptation etc
The topless "woman" is actually a dude. The other is a woman that had a double mastectomy and now pretends to be a man.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
Why? I agree that it's offensive but that's why it should be shared so that people can be aware of what the Washington Establishment stands for these days. The Establishment-serving media isn't going to share these images with the masses.
There's more than enough degeneracy displayed in the other tweets to make your point, and I'd rather not see bewbs when I login to texags... lead us not into temptation etc
The topless "woman" is actually a dude. The other is a woman that had a double mastectomy and now pretends to be a man.
ugh

M1Buckeye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

M1Buckeye said:

747Ag said:

Do us a favor and get rid of the last embedded tweet from the op.
Why? I agree that it's offensive but that's why it should be shared so that people can be aware of what the Washington Establishment stands for these days. The Establishment-serving media isn't going to share these images with the masses.
There's more than enough degeneracy displayed in the other tweets to make your point, and I'd rather not see bewbs when I login to texags... lead us not into temptation etc
The topless "woman" is actually a dude. The other is a woman that had a double mastectomy and now pretends to be a man.
ugh



My thought exactly.

And then leftists tell us that we on the right have gotten extreme. LOL.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

kurt vonnegut said:

This is why Christians are accused of caring more about sexual sins than other sins.
Homosexuality is unique among other sins in that it is celebrated and advocated by virtually the entirety of the western world. Christians are also very outspoken about the egregious sin of abortion. If secularists weren't ramming homosexuality down our collective throats there would be much less said about it. When secularists begin celebrating and advocating for murder, we'll speak out against that too.

forgive the generalizations in this post. . . .

I still think this is a very short sighted view. And of all of the things that have happened in the last 2000 years, do you really think that social pressure for LGBTQ acceptance is the worst of it?

Slavery was celebrated and advocated by virtually the entirety of the world (including Christianity) for a long time. Genocide and war has been justified and advocated for (including by Christianity). I think that homosexuality feels like a big deal today to Christians for a few reasons:

We are tribal creatures and we will always create these new 'great evils of the day'. Because we need something to hate. Because we live in a time of 'relative' stability and peace, we feel less impact from evils of genocide and war. And the places that are currently affected by genocide and war feel further away. In the absence of those evils, we've moved on to other sins. If homosexuality were to disappear off the face of the planet today, then tomorrow Christians would be talking about the great evil of [insert some other tribe whose values are 'sinful']. And the prevalence of those sins would be sign of the impending anti-Christ. Because we all always need something to hate, right? Its a built in feature of tribalism and religions. It brings the 'in-group' closer together. And you can tell me all day long about how Christians don't 'hate' others. And I would tell you that is fine in theory but utterly ridiculous in the history of its practice. And you can point the finger back at me or at secularism or other groups. And you won't be wrong in doing so. We're all tribal. The best we can do is acknowledge it, consider if its good or bad, and try to react accordingly.

Next, modern Christianity absolutely treats "certain" sexual sins differently. Greed does not carry the same stigma as homosexuality. Nor does anger, or hate, or heterosexual relations out of wedlock, or divorce. While these sins are not typically promoted, they are far from condemned in the same manner as homosexuality is. And I think that the reason is that many Christians can understand the pull of greed, and so are sympathetic when someone acts in greed. And they can understand the pull of anger and hate and adultery and lust. But they don't understand the pull of heterosexuality and, therefore, there is zero sympathy and this is a sin that can be more drastically condemned and offenders can be openly oppressed. Christians hate the sin of homosexuality more than other sins because its a sin that most of them don't understand and don't feel tempted by. And that puts them in a position where they feel they can throw the first rock.

There is soooo much premarital sex within Christianity, and such a small observable outrage from Christians. And there is soo much divorce and pornography and adultery and other sexual sins by Christians. . . and such little observable outrage. But the gays!!!!

And what about the sin of rejection of the Christian God? There are 6 Billion people on this planet that reject the Christian God. The live openly in worship of false gods or no gods. Building monuments and temples, wearing demonic garb promoting their gods, praying, marrying, living in the name of their false demon gods. Ramming their values down the throats of others. What about this sin? The Christian definitions and stipulations for sex and marriage are not limited to one man / one woman. Yet, that is the only definition and stipulation that Christians care to see enforced in the larger national culture. My sin of not being married in church in front of God is okay. My sinful relationship is tolerated. But other sinful relationship are not.

And as far as having homosexuality rammed down your throats? This is 100% a consequence of your own doing. If today, Christians decided that having red hair was a sin and that redheads should not be permitted to marry or participate in society, then tomorrow you will have redhead organizations and redhead pride parades in the street. LBGTQ values being shoved down your throat are a direct response to you shoving your values down other's throats. I truly cannot understand how American Christians cannot understand this. Stop hating the gays and all of this pride stuff melts away. Guaranteed.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

Rocag said:

Sex and gender are far more complicated at the edges than the strict XY/XX, male/female molds some people think everything has to fall in. And these issues aren't really that uncommon.
There are people who claim that such defects render one a new gender. I disagree. There is no more a new gender than a person born with six fingers is a new species.
It seems like you're using the words gender and sex interchangeably. That isn't really accurate and leads to a lot of confusion. They are different and if you are going to try and have an honest discussion on this topic you need to be aware of that.

Regarding sex, we're getting in to the territory of how do you define it? Is external physical characteristics? Chromosomes? There are conditions which produce variability in both of these. I personally wouldn't be surprised if we find both homosexuality and transgenderism are determined very early in physical and mental development, perhaps even in utero.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In 2024, date to be released soon, at Kyle Field.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

AgLiving06 said:

Nero doesn't fit as "the antichrist"

2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.


Whoever "the antichrist" is will come from within the Church. That's the reason the consensus thought it was the Pope during the time of the Reformation.

However, if the discussion is about the multitude of antichrists that John discusses:

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

Then sure, Nero fits, Saul fits, Peter fits, if you get down to it, we all fit because we've all done things "against God."

Where exactly in scripture do you glean that the last/final Antichrist will come from within the Church? To be the antichrist and fit the only 4 scriptures that specifically mention the antichrist merely states that they do not confess that Jesus is The Christ/God and denies his coming in the flesh.
The old tire idea that it was the Pope was born solely out of the reformation and the need for Protestants to have some big emphasis to draw people to them and away from the Church and provide comfort that they made the right decision to split from Christ's Church. It has zero basis in scripture or reality. Besides, the Popes, throughout history and despite their human mistakes have always confessed the divinity of Jesus. The bible doesn't say the Antichrist will publicly profess their faith but secretly not really believe it. The whole point is that they will publicly lead people away from faith in Christ.

Peter does not fit the description of the Antichrist. John 4 gives practical tests.

Look at the texts I posted. The Anti-Christ will take a seat within the Temple of God. What is the Temple of God in a jewish context? The Church.

As far as the Pope being the Anti-Christ, no it was not just the Reformers. Many Roman Catholics thought that as well. It really only took a 5 second google search, Antichrist link

The bible, as I pointed out above, makes two claims:

1. There is an Anti-Christ
2. There are many anti-christs.

But what is an anti-christ. It's someone who is against Christ. The question then is, when we are speaking against God's promises or acting in manners that are contrary to God's promises, are we not acting against god?

So when Peter screws up and Jesus says "Get behind me, Satan" he is acting in opposition to Jesus ->anti-christ
When Saul is murdering Christians -> anti-christ

I'm not making the claim that they are "The Anti-Christ", but they clearly performed actions that were against Christ.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are other ways to read that. Listen to that Lord of Spirits podcast, it spends an hour and a half on those verses.

Short version is that is a translation of temple that can also be house, and sitting is an implication of equality, so this is a way to speak of ultimate hubris to make oneself as equal to God versus literally sitting down in a temple.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
M1Buckeye said:

BluHorseShu said:

M1Buckeye said:

When I see things like this, I can't help but think the restraints are being gradually released and that the antiChrist and his "Beast" system aren't far off.

Revelation 13:20 esv
So that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.









I believe that the following verse from the apostle Paul is describing the Holy Spirit restraining Satan until the last days, which I believe we are approaching, based on what I'm seeing going on in the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7
And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
I just noticed what is interesting 2 Thessalonians 2:15about the verse you mention above (2 Thessalonians). As Catholics, we believe 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is supportive of the importance of the traditions handed down, by word or epistle...And this verse is references how important it is because of the previous verses in the same chapter where Paul is warning of the 'man of lawlessness' and how we can guard against him.

Paul also said...

1 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I'm going to stick with the word of God. If you want to place your belief in something some guy said in 450 AD, that's your choice, but I don't recommend it.
You should also have italicized 'may'. Catholics absolutely believe the bible is materially sufficient. To use an analogy I've used before here...Home Depot is formally sufficient to build your own house...but the likelihood of most people doing exactly as intended is extremely low...which is why Christ gave us his Church. It helps us understand the formal sufficiency. If the bible was all that anyone needed to reasonably understand how to follow Christs teachings, then there wouldn't be so many disagreements about scripture.

ETA: I'll take interpretations of the majority of early Christian fathers closest to the time of Christ rather than assuming I know better what the scripture means. We all stick to the Word of God. I think you mean your own personal interpretation of scripture. Catholics drawn on history and tradition to support interpretations of scripture. Even in Jesus parables he had to explain what they meant. He didnt assume everyone would understand. Just like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. He was a believer and when Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading he said "How can I unless someone guides me" Acts 8:30-31. This is the role of the Church and tradition
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

Regarding the Layla Jane story, there's not much info publicly available. I see the lawsuit but I'm curious what the truth behind it is. I'm skeptical. If trans minors are being allowed in any significant numbers to have sex reassignment surgery where is this happening? Everywhere it's accused doctors and nurses come forward insist it isn't. It might happen very rarely with other extenuating circumstances but in otherwise there should be more evidence that we're not seeing.

And extenuating circumstances might be something like intersex kids and the issues that affect them. Look it up if you aren't familiar. Sex and gender are far more complicated at the edges than the strict XY/XX, male/female molds some people think everything has to fall in. And these issues aren't really that uncommon.

Rocag is right here. This issue has been mischaracterized and demagogued to a frightening level.

One of my best friends is a Pediatric Endocrinologist and he is so worried and discouraged about the current dialogue in this country because there is just so much vitriol and lies.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SfQYdWPJAoY%3D&portalid=0
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

There are other ways to read that. Listen to that Lord of Spirits podcast, it spends an hour and a half on those verses.

Short version is that is a translation of temple that can also be house, and sitting is an implication of equality, so this is a way to speak of ultimate hubris to make oneself as equal to God versus literally sitting down in a temple.

Sure there's always alternative ways to read anything...but the most plain way is how it is written.

I don't listen to Lord of the Spirits. I'm not a particular fan of DeYoung.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the most plain way isn't always the correct way. people use figurative language and make allusions regularly when they write.

at any rate, i'm not saying to read it any other way than how it is written. i'm saying to read it in a different way than the way you are reading it, or perhaps to understand it in the context that it was delivered which your interpretation does not consider.

how it is written can be contrasted in St Paul's own writings in Hebrews 2:9 and Philippians 2:6-11. Christ humbles Himself, the antichrist exalts himself; Christ does not consider equality with God something to be seized or grasped, the antichrist makes himself equal to God.

in the sentence itself, "proclaiming himself to be God" is not perhaps the clear. apodeiknumi is the verb there, which means to show, display, or exhibit (compare 1 Cor 4:9 "God has exhibited us apostles as last of all").

The alluded sitting down in the temple is and the idea Man of Lawlessness displaying or exhibiting himself to be God are linked. Sitting in the ancient world was the mark of authority, teachers sat and learners stood (compare John 8:2 or Matthew 26:55). Or, similarly, it can be a figurative way to describe that the Man of Lawlessness makes himself equal to God.

you yourself are taking a mixed approach to figurative vs literal interpretation by saying the Temple of God (there is a definite article before temple) is figurative language for the Church. but the Temple at the time of this writing was a physical building in Jerusalem. so then which physical church building is the of God that the man of lawlessness can go sit in it?
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would say after the Rapture. Jesus referenced "as it was in the days of Noah…"
I believe that the coming great deception will be demons/fallen angels disguising themselves as benevolent Aliens/ETs and that they have been at work abducting humans and extracting animal tissue/DNA in order to create armies of hybrid beings. As long as the church of believers is on earth to take spiritual authority over their actions, they are limited. Once the church is raptured, they have a relatively free hand, including introduction of the false messiah.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

the most plain way isn't always the correct way. people use figurative language and make allusions regularly when they write.

at any rate, i'm not saying to read it any other way than how it is written. i'm saying to read it in a different way than the way you are reading it, or perhaps to understand it in the context that it was delivered which your interpretation does not consider.

how it is written can be contrasted in St Paul's own writings in Hebrews 2:9 and Philippians 2:6-11. Christ humbles Himself, the antichrist exalts himself; Christ does not consider equality with God something to be seized or grasped, the antichrist makes himself equal to God.

in the sentence itself, "proclaiming himself to be God" is not perhaps the clear. apodeiknumi is the verb there, which means to show, display, or exhibit (compare 1 Cor 4:9 "God has exhibited us apostles as last of all").

The alluded sitting down in the temple is and the idea Man of Lawlessness displaying or exhibiting himself to be God are linked. Sitting in the ancient world was the mark of authority, teachers sat and learners stood (compare John 8:2 or Matthew 26:55). Or, similarly, it can be a figurative way to describe that the Man of Lawlessness makes himself equal to God.

you yourself are taking a mixed approach to figurative vs literal interpretation by saying the Temple of God (there is a definite article before temple) is figurative language for the Church. but the Temple at the time of this writing was a physical building in Jerusalem. so then which physical church building is the of God that the man of lawlessness can go sit in it?

It's not always the correct way sure, but it's a reasonable case to say we should take Scripture at its word unless we have a compelling reason not to, and I don't see a lot in 2 Thess that screams we should view it differently.

Even the view you mentioned isn't particularly against the literal reading. I think it needs to go further in the sense that he will be accepted within the Church.

btw. Chrysostom seems to agree:

"For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. Setting himself forth, he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs."

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The net implication is that THE antichrist will ultimately end the Eucharist, and then the end will come. I think that is the thrust of how St John reads it. But even then, doesn't say he rises from within the church but that he places himself into it. And St John actually speaks against a literal reading of sitting down in the temple. So.. yeah, I think what Fr Stephen talks about is right in line with St John. Which shouldn't be surprising anyway.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What your suggesting would not follow any particular exegetical method.

There's still no reason presented as to why we should not use the plain reading of the text.

Appealing to John as an interpretive method doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and Paul does not give us a reason to suggest we should. For me, the challenge is when you start with a desire to default to the figurative solution over the more literal, you open the text up to all kinds of interpretation.

Even then, you're trying to nuance out an answer that isn't problematic for the plain view. The primary though is that the Anti-Christ would be accepted within the Church. Just proclaiming yourself God or on par with God would not meet the requirement, and frankly, a lot of people have made that claim throughout history.

So in the case of Nero, which is what started this, he burned and killed a lot of Christians, but he was never accepted into the Church in any manner that I'm aware of.

That's why many (on all sides of the debate) thought it might be the Pope because of his corruption and position within the Church.

BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

What your suggesting would not follow any particular exegetical method.

There's still no reason presented as to why we should not use the plain reading of the text.

Appealing to John as an interpretive method doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and Paul does not give us a reason to suggest we should. For me, the challenge is when you start with a desire to default to the figurative solution over the more literal, you open the text up to all kinds of interpretation.

Even then, you're trying to nuance out an answer that isn't problematic for the plain view. The primary though is that the Anti-Christ would be accepted within the Church. Just proclaiming yourself God or on par with God would not meet the requirement, and frankly, a lot of people have made that claim throughout history.

So in the case of Nero, which is what started this, he burned and killed a lot of Christians, but he was never accepted into the Church in any manner that I'm aware of.

That's why many (on all sides of the debate) thought it might be the Pope because of his corruption and position within the Church.


Except there has never been a Pope who did publicly teaching the divinity of Christ and being the Messiah. The case for Nero has to do with worship and placing himself, as emperor, as over the Church.

We also have to be careful when we say things like "would shouldn't appeal to so and so as an interpretive method because in this case it doesn't make sense". If we use the same logic in interpreting scripture, we leave ourselves open to contradictions. This is why, Jesus never intended each individual to interpret scripture of their own accord without any outside guidance...like the Church/tradition.

When we debate with atheists, they will often use the argument that if someone in scripture doesn't mention it, then there is a problem. Kind of like Mark leaving out details about the resurrection. Some atheists might say..."see, he never mentions the disciples in Galilee and if that is important and he was aware, he should have mentioned it".
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
where does it say that he will be accepted in the church??
Klaus Schwab
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

The net implication is that THE antichrist will ultimately end the Eucharist, and then the end will come. I think that is the thrust of how St John reads it. But even then, doesn't say he rises from within the church but that he places himself into it. And St John actually speaks against a literal reading of sitting down in the temple. So.. yeah, I think what Fr Stephen talks about is right in line with St John. Which shouldn't be surprising anyway.
This is correct. Also, the OP sounds like a blood moon Hagee evangelical. The majority of those people, if alive, will be deceived. Your personal biblical interpretation/faith will not save you during those times. You have the opportunity to join the Church now and repent. Things are very easy right now and this is the time.

For the OP- you seem to strike at the Catholics a lot. Your position is not much different than Rome. You blame the Pope and yet you are a Pope.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

AgLiving06 said:

What your suggesting would not follow any particular exegetical method.

There's still no reason presented as to why we should not use the plain reading of the text.

Appealing to John as an interpretive method doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and Paul does not give us a reason to suggest we should. For me, the challenge is when you start with a desire to default to the figurative solution over the more literal, you open the text up to all kinds of interpretation.

Even then, you're trying to nuance out an answer that isn't problematic for the plain view. The primary though is that the Anti-Christ would be accepted within the Church. Just proclaiming yourself God or on par with God would not meet the requirement, and frankly, a lot of people have made that claim throughout history.

So in the case of Nero, which is what started this, he burned and killed a lot of Christians, but he was never accepted into the Church in any manner that I'm aware of.

That's why many (on all sides of the debate) thought it might be the Pope because of his corruption and position within the Church.


Except there has never been a Pope who did publicly teaching the divinity of Christ and being the Messiah. The case for Nero has to do with worship and placing himself, as emperor, as over the Church.

We also have to be careful when we say things like "would shouldn't appeal to so and so as an interpretive method because in this case it doesn't make sense". If we use the same logic in interpreting scripture, we leave ourselves open to contradictions. This is why, Jesus never intended each individual to interpret scripture of their own accord without any outside guidance...like the Church/tradition.

When we debate with atheists, they will often use the argument that if someone in scripture doesn't mention it, then there is a problem. Kind of like Mark leaving out details about the resurrection. Some atheists might say..."see, he never mentions the disciples in Galilee and if that is important and he was aware, he should have mentioned it".

I've heard someone say it before, and this forum tends to prove it out, there's a significant gap between the modern pop apologetics roman catholic and the scholar Roman Catholic.

I've already shown that actual Roman Catholics believed that the Pope has have been the Anti-Christ. You can try to argue it away or say that's not possible, but history isn't on your side. It's typically not held that the Pope is "the Anti-Christ" anymore, but he can be an anti-christ.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

where does it say that he will be accepted in the church??

Fair...I was utilizing the view that Chrysostom's take that The Anti-Christ would do more than simply enter the Church and proclaim himself God.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.