JAG**

Incorrect. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist.

"John nor any of the apostles gave the name of the Antichrist.:__Douggg You are incorrect. John mentioned antichrist in these 4 instances in his epistles. 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 So how can you say: "John nor any of the apostles gave the name of the Antichrist.:__Douggg However, if you mean some future antichrist then that is your personal assumption and your speculation --- because the Bible does NOT say there is to be a future THE antichrist. YOU may proclaim that there will be one. But the Bible does NOT say there is to be THE antichrist in the future. If you want to keep the word antichrist then you have got to base your doctrine of antichrist on this: 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 The Bible mentions antichrist in ONLY these 4 instances. So you MUST make a clear and solid CONNECTION to John's antichrists ---otherwise give up the name "antichrist" and just issue a proclamation that your imagined future "evil man" is called whatever you want to call him --- just don't call him THE "antichrist." I repeat: The Bible mentions antichrist in ONLY these 4 instances. So you MUST make a clear and solid CONNECTION to John's antichrists ---otherwise give up the name "antichrist" and just issue a proclamation that your imagined future "evil man" is called whatever you want to call him --- just don't call him THE "antichrist." _______________ Solid, is this: If you want to keep the name "antichrist" then you MUST make the connection to John's mention of antichrists here , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 ______________ "Why, does there have to be a connection with all those verses you listed, for there not to be a future antichrist?"___Douggg Because the people that predict a future antichrist assume and speculate that there is a connection and they build their doctrine of some future evil world ruler that they call THE antichrist based upon their assumed speculations that John's antichrists are connected to one or more on this list: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2}

That has nothing to do with this particular thread. That has nothing to do with the title of this thread. That has nothing to do with what my Opening Post requests. My title asks for a Bible Verse. Do you have one? My Opening Post asks for a Bible Verse. Do you have one? If you do not have one, then you are in the wrong thread. Would you like to start a thread so you can discuss subjects OTHER THAN a clear Bible-Verse connection between John's antichrists and that list down there? In order for the notion that there is to be some sort of "future antichrist" to be established there MUST be a clear Bible-Verse CONNECTION between John's antichrists , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , and one or more on this list , , , ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible The truth is that NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes that connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with any other parts of the Bible. ___________ So far, most everybody who has posted in opposition has talked about subjects OTHER THAN what this particular thread is asking for. The reason is because there is NOT a single Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with that list up there.

Post Deleted by JAG

Post deleted by JAG

I do not desire to get away from it. See below. The antichrists mentioned in John's epistles were in John NEAR FUTURE and NOT in John's FAR OFF FUTURE. See {1} and {2} and {3} below. Pure speculation about John's "future" yet to come antichrist is NOT a BIBLE-VERSE argument because the Biblical text nowhere in John's epistles gives any indication that John was saying that the antichrist was in John's FAR OFF FUTURE. That means that John's antichrist appeared in John's NEAR FUTURE and in fact John's epistles clearly support the NEAR FUTURE interpretation. Evidence to support the NEAR FUTURE interpretation is the clear statements in John's epistles that certainly and COMPELLINGLY identify John's antichrists as JOHN'S PRESENT DAY Christian apostates. John clearly said the following about them, and about his present time of the first century: (1) "this is the last hour" (written over 2000 years ago and clearly not a reference to the year 2020) "this is the last hour" is a clear reference to the time when John wrote that, namely the first century. (2) "even NOW many antichrists have come." (John's antichrist were there in the first century) (3) "they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" In (3) up there John is clearly speaking about his time of the first century and clearly does NOT have reference to some future time period. So? So the Bible is CLEAR that John's antichrists were first century Christian apostates. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist

That has nothing to do with this particular thread. That has nothing to do with the title of this thread. That has nothing to do with what my Opening Post requests. My title asks for a Bible Verse. Do you have one? My Opening Post asks for a Bible Verse. Do you have one? If you do not have one, then you are in the wrong thread. Would you like to start a thread so you can discuss subjects OTHER THAN a clear Bible-Verse connection between John's antichrists and that list down there? In order for the notion that there is to be some sort of "future antichrist" to be established there MUST be a clear Bible-Verse CONNECTION between John's antichrists , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , and one or more on this list , , , ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible The truth is that NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes that connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with any other parts of the Bible. ___________ So far, most everybody who has posted in opposition has talked about subjects OTHER THAN what this particular thread is asking for. The reason is because there is NOT a single Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with that list up there. JAG

Thank you for your comments and thank you for the insults. What do you think of this: "Attack the idea, not the person." Regarding your post: I disagree with you. I repeat myself because I have a right to stick with the proposition of the title of my Opening Post and with the subject of this thread. Therefore I have NOT been rudely dismissive of anyone. The title of my thread has been ignored by some. My repeated successful defense of my title and my Opening Post has been ignored by some. How so? Because my title and my Opening Post asks for a Bible-verse connection between John's antichrists , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , and one or more on this list , , , ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible You have not been able to provide a Bible-verse connection, so you have now resorted to personal insults. "I have heard that behavior called narcissistic psychopathy. I think it more just plain bad."___Diaste "I have to hand it to you...dancing around a critical fact in rigid determination to remain willfully ignorant is impressive."___Diaste ____________________ If you want to discuss an issue OTHER THAN the title of my Opening Post and thread, then you can do that ---but NOT with me. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist.

My view is the answer to your question is No. In order for the notion that there is to be some sort of "future antichrist" to be established there MUST be a clear Bible-Verse CONNECTION between John's antichrists , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , and one or more on this list , , , ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible The truth is that NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes that connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with any other part of the Bible. So? So the idea regarding: "the Antichrist concept being rooted in 'the Christ' concept of being the King of Israel" ---- would have nothing to do with this crucial all-important list up there and the fact that John's antichrists are not connected by any Bible-Verse to any of the characters on that list, eg, Daniel 7 "the little horn" 2 Thess 2 "the man of sin" Revelation 13 "the beast" etc etc So I do not think Dr. Boettner ever mentioned what you asked me about. JAG

All the above is nothing more than your personal assumptions and your personal interpretative speculations. You have not produced one {1} Bible Verse that makes the connection with John's antichrists , , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , , and this list below: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible ____________________ The Bible is CLEAR that John's antichrists were first century Christian apostates. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. ___________________ "Whether he is ever given the title of "The Antichrist" in scripture is a trivial point not worth arguing."__Last Daze That is incorrect. That is no more than your personal attempt to dismiss and ignore the central key crucial all-important word antichrist, in this debate. You seek to win by issuing your personal proclamation that the word "antichrist" is not worth arguing about ---when THAT is what the debate is ALL ABOUT. Your proclamation is not to be seriously considered. You cannot make your "no Bible-Verse connection" problem go away by merely issuing a personal proclamation that the word antichrist is "not worth arguing." __________________ You either have a Bible-Verse that makes the connection or you do not have one. My view is that you do NOT have one --- because there is NOT one --- not even one {1} Bible verse that connects John's antichrists with this list below: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible JAG

As I said there Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. The antichrists mentioned in John's epistles were in John NEAR FUTURE and NOT in John's FAR OFF FUTURE. See {1} and {2} and {3} below. Pure speculation about John's "future" yet to come antichrist is NOT a BIBLE-VERSE argument because the Biblical text nowhere in John's epistles gives any indication that John was saying that the antichrist was in John's FAR OFF FUTURE. That means that John's antichrist appeared in John's NEAR FUTURE and in fact John's epistles clearly support the NEAR FUTURE interpretation. Evidence to support the NEAR FUTURE interpretation is the clear statements in John's epistles that certainly and COMPELLINGLY identify John's antichrists as JOHN'S PRESENT DAY Christian apostates. John clearly said the following about them, and about his present time of the first century: (1) "this is the last hour" (written over 2000 years ago and clearly not a reference to the year 2020) "this is the last hour" is a clear reference to the time when John wrote that, namely the first century. (2) "even NOW many antichrists have come." (John's antichrist were there in the first century) (3) "they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us, but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" In (3) up there John is clearly speaking about his time of the first century and clearly does NOT have reference to some future time period. So? So the Bible is CLEAR that John's antichrists were first century Christian apostates. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Diaste Wrote: Start quote. I just realized this is a fundamentally flawed argument. Tomorrow there will be antichrists. Some will act and some will be born. 1 John 2 says this and you missed it. "...it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." - 1 John 2:18 John is not saying that only those who deny Christ are 'antichrist'. John begins by affirming the belief of the congregants 'that antichrist shall come'; proof of affirmation in 'and as ye have heard', in no way disputing this belief; and adding that we know it is the last time by the 'many antichrists'. "Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed." - 2 Thess 2 Clearly this guy Paul shows us in the above is 'very antichrist' by John's description; "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." because Paul says of the 'man of lawlessness'; "He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thess 2 I don't believe one can be more 'antichrist' than that denying both the Father and the Son, and it is the standard John gives for determining who is 'antichrist'. End quote. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ All the above is nothing more than your personal assumptions and your personal interpretative speculations. You have not produced one {1} Bible Verse that makes the connection with John's antichrists , , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , , and this list below: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible Conclusion: There is no Bible-Verse argument for a future antichrist. JAG

All the above is nothing more than your personal assumptions and your personal interpretative speculations. You have not produced one {1} Bible Verse that makes the connection with John's antichrists , , , , 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 , , , , and this list below: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible Conclusion: There is no Bible-Verse argument for a future antichrist. JAG

Thank you. Yeah there sure is a LARGE number of antichrists in the world today. I can name 6 of them right now: {1} Richard Dawkins {2} Sam Harris {3} Daniel Dennett {4} Matt Dillahunty {all over You Tube with antichrist messages} {5} Stephen Fry {see explanation below} {6} The late Christopher Hitchens {still speaking against Christ through his books and videos} ■ Then you can add to that list all the activists thread-atheists that haunt most every forum on the Internet At Large and there are a HUGE number of them that daily post AGAINST Christ and AGAINST the Bible and AGAINST the God of the Bible. ■ Regarding the atheist Stephen Fry mentioned up there # {5} : Stephen Fry was being interviewed and he was asked what if there really is a God? What if when you die you meet God? What would you say to God? Stephen Fry said he would ask God, "Bone cancer in children, what's that all about, God?" The video of all that is on You Tube and it went viral and so many activist thread-atheists do now accuse the God of the Bible of putting bone cancer in children. So? So yes there are MANY antichrists in the world today and there have been many antichrists in the world for the last 2000 years. In fact any humans that are AGAINST God are antichrists and in this sense there were antichrists in the Old Testament also, eg the wicked Jezebel was an antichrist because she was AGAINST God and to be AGAINST God is to also be against His Christ because the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. JAG ``

All that is just more personal assumptions and more personal interpretive speculations in lieu of the fact that you do NOT have a Bible Verse that makes a clear connection between John's antichrists and any of the following: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. The truth is that NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes that connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that makes a connection to John's antichrists mentioned in these 4 instances in John's epistles with that list up there. 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 So? So this truth ought to be known and believed because it is the truth: There is no Bible -Verse that makes the connection between John's antichrists and any of the following ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible Again the above is the truth and the truth needs to be known and believed. So far the title of my Opening Post stands unrefuted: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. JAG

Sounds good to me. Sign me up as believing in all of that , , , and believing it strongly too. JAG ``

Agreed. If you define antichrist the way you have defined antichrist in your post up there, then I agree with you. However the way you define antichrist in your post up there is NOT the same kind of antichrist that my Opening Post is talking about. My Opening Post is talking about some who assume and speculate that John's antichrists are CONNECTED to one or more of the following ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ________ But the truth is that NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes that connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that makes a connection to John's antichrists mentioned in these 4 instances in John's epistles with that list up there. 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 So there is no Bible -Verse that makes the connection between John's antichrists and any of the following? ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible ___________ So? So if you define antichrists like this: "Of course there is. Anyone throughout biblical history and today who is against Christ is an antichrist."___SONshine , , , , , , then I agree with you and you now can agree with my Opening Post because your definition of antichrist up there --- does NOT conflict with my Opening Post. Best JAG

Here is what I am saying: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. There was not a single Bible-Verse in your post that made a connection with John's antichrists in John's epistles. Not one. The Bible mentions Antichrists in only the following 4 verses: 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 Your post failed to make any connection with John's antichrists. Your post presented personal interpretative speculation. Mark 13 and Revelation 6 and Revelation 4 do NOT mention antichrists. You are presenting personal assumptions and personal interpretative speculation and NOT presenting a Bible-Verse connection between the verses you cite and John's antichrists. The truth is there is NOT a single Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes the connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that makes a connection to John's antichrists in these 4 instances 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 So far the title of my Opening Post and this thread stands unrefuted. Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. _______________ Regarding Satan: This thread is NOT about Satan. This Opening Post seeks to establish the truth that there is no Bible-Verse connection between John's antichrists and any other part of the Bible. Do you have a Bible -Verse that makes the connection between John's antichrists and any of the following? ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible Best JAG

Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. Thank you for your comments. I pray the following will help you. There was not a single Bible-Verse in your post that made a connection with John's antichrists in John's epistles. Not one. The Bible mentions Antichrists in only the following 4 verses: 1 John 2:18 1John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 Your post failed to make any connection with John's antichrists. Your post presented personal interpretative speculation. Mark 13 and Revelation 6 and Revelation 4 do NOT mention antichrists. You are presenting personal assumptions and personal interpretative speculation and NOT presenting a Bible-Verse connection between the verses you cite and John's antichrists. The truth is there is NOT a single Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with: ■ Daniel 7 ■ 2 Thess 2 ■ Revelation 13 ■ the book of Revelation ■ Ezekiel ■ the "false prophet" ■ the "harlot" ■ the "beast" ■ the "little horn" ■ the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" -- in 2 Thess 2} ■ or any other parts of the Bible NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes the connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that makes a connection to John's antichrists in these 4 instances 1 John 2:18 1 John 2:22 1 John 4:3 2 John 7 So far the title of my Opening Post and this thread stands unrefuted. Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. JAG

The answer to your question is no I am NOT saying that there will be no future antichrist tyrants that will appear that do the work of Satan. But what I mean by that is the future antichrists tyrants will be no more than the regular run of the mill wicked people that have always plagued the Christian Church. There is no THE Antichrist that is yet future --- but there is a whole herd of regular antichrists. In fact some of these regular wicked antichrists are NOW in Washington D.C. and have been elected to public office --- and they hold evil political policies on some of the Social Issues. Any human beings that stand against Christ and stand for wickedness is an antichrist. The prefix "Anti" means "against" or "opposite of" -- so any humans that are against Christ are antichrists. ___________ The following said in kindness , , , Regarding "pushing" and "dogmatic flourish": I do not "push" my views any more than you "push" your views. I do not "push" my views any more than any other poster "pushes" their views. I do not use a "dogmatic flourish" any more that you use a "dogmatic flourish" to advance your views --- or any more than other posters use a "dogmatic flourish" to advance their views. My Opening Post and my follow-up posts in this thread are either TRUE or FALSE. My view is that they are TRUE --- that there is NOT a single Bible-Verse that connects John's antichrists with: Daniel 7 2 Thess 2 Revelation 13 the book of Revelation Ezekiel the "false prophet" the "harlot" the "beast" the "little horn" the "man of sin" {the "man of lawlessness" } 2 Thess 2} or any other parts of the Bible NOT one {1} single Bible Verse makes the connection -- all of it is pure interpretative personal speculation without so much as one {1} clear Bible-Verse that makes the connection. JAG `

Thanks for your comments. Please feel free to share your views and positions. Your views and positions are most welcome. I can only repeat what I said earlier which is I am totally satisfied to allow my Opening Post and my follow-up posts in this thread to stand in opposition to your views --- without further comments from me. ____________ My view is that the following thread title remains true and unrefuted which is what my Opening Post and my follow-up posts sought to accomplish. Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist , , , , , , as presented and explained in the Opening Post Best. JAG PS I had another purpose in writing the Opening Post and that was to encourage anyone interested to do a personal private study of John's antichrists and Postmillennialism in general and I sourced one good place to start: He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology , , Third Edition by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry 600 plus pages 6 x 9 x 2 inches easy to read print $36.00 Free S/H amazon has it.

Thank you for the kind words. Regarding that quote it very well may have been Dr. Gentry's. I started to give him credit for it before I posted it, but honestly before the good Lord I could not remember if I wrote that, or if what Gentry wrote just stuck in my mind. I always give credit when I quote some one. But I simply don't know for sure. I probably should have put ___unknown beside the quote. Let me do that now: "It is sad indeed that Amillennialism, Premillennialism, and Dispensationalism repudiates the gospel victory theme of the Bible in their modern eschatological speculations and replaces this victory theme with a defeatist scheme of the future of the Christian Church and Human race. This paralyzes Christian cultural efforts and eliminates the practical significance from the Christian worldview, and gives Christians a sinful comfort in lethargy because all this Defeatism and Doom and Gloom tends to justify social and cultural irresponsibility. "Why polish brass on a sinking ship", ask many misinformed Christians."___Unknown {but possibly JAG's or possibly Gentry's) Its also possible that I added some of my own thoughts to what I read that Gentry wrote regarding the Doom and Gloom stuff. Its all a blur and I have no recollection of it at all. JAG

Agreed. I apologize for the way I worded what you quoted. I should not have written it that way. I should have written it in such a way as to positively include all your concerns and your legitimate objections so that it would NOT have been possible for anyone to draw the conclusions you drew --- which was my fault for the way I wrote it. Sorry. JAG

To the thread: This thread may be near the end and since my primary motive in writing my Opening Post and my follow-up posts in this thread was to encourage a personal private study of John's antichrists as interpreted from the Postmillennial point of view --- I am therefore posting the following for any present readers {or future readers} who may be interested in a personal private study of Postmillennialism. The following is soon coming , , , The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation. A massive commentary on the Book Of Revelation. 2 Volumes. over 1800 pages by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Dr. Gentry has just recently completed his massive commentary on Revelation and it will be available this year Start quote. "Thanks for your interest in my Revelation commentary titled: The Divorce Of Israel: A Redemptive Historical Interpretation Of Revelation. I completed its research and writing in early 2016 and submitted it to the publisher at that time. It will be a two-volume set of a little over 1800 pages. The publisher is Tolle Lege Press. Due to the size and complexity of the work (deeply exegetical; voluminously footnoted; technical use of Biblical languages; and so forth) and the unexpected reduction of Tolle Lege’s staff, it has taken them much longer than anticipated to complete. However, on May 11, 2020, I received a note from the Publisher at Tolle Lege with some great news. They have worked out a co-publishing arrangement with American Vision. They have also noted that the commentary is finally ready for layout, which will be followed by printing. It should be published this year, Lord willing! Please keep this in your prayers."__Dr. Gentry End Quote. This work is going to be a massive exegetical study of the New testament book of Revelation , 2 volumes --- over 1800 pages JAG

To the thread. Anticipated objection to the proposition title of this thread. "JAG you say there is no Bible-Verse argument for a future antichrist, well JAG neither is there a Bible-Verse argument for the Trinity or for Christians worshiping on Sunday." JAG Replies: My view is that is incorrect. The New Testament writers originated the concept of the Trinity. We have clear Bible verses in support. Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." ~ Father ~ Son ~ Holy Spirit 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." ~ The Lord Jesus Christ ~ God ~ The Holy Spirit _____________ Moreover, the way the Bible is written demands that we read it Trinitarian. Some examples: * Jesus said "I and my Father are one." * John writes in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word . . .and the Word was God" * The Lord Jesus forgave sins. Nobody but God can forgive sins. __________ Its not possible to read through the New Testament's Bible verses and escape the clear affirmations that: ~ The Father ~ The Son ~ The Holy Spirit , , , , , are all Three God. They all Three function as God --- all Three do what ONLY God could do There are many many other clear BIBLE-VERSE examples in the New Testament that demand a Trinitarian reading of the New Testament. _______________ Continued , , , Anticipated objection to the proposition title of this thread. "JAG you say there is no Bible-Verse argument for a future antichrist, well JAG neither is there a Bible-Verse argument for the Trinity or for worshiping on Sunday." Regarding the worship on Sunday anticipated objection: The Sunday issue is not a creedal concern of Christendom. That means there is not a single Bible verse that says that God cares which day is chosen for Christians to gather for church services. It was the people in the Christian Church that selected Sunday as the day of worship and not God. There is no Bible verse that says God selected Sunday as the day of worship for Christians. There is no Bible verse that says God cares which day is selected. "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.__1 Corinthians 16:2 The people in the Christian Church selected Sunday probably because of 1 Corinthians 16:2. But this verse does NOT say that Sunday MUST be the day that is selected for worship. So? So the anticipated objection about Sunday is a non-issue. JAG PS My view is that it is incorrect to hold that Christendom holds any major doctrines to be true, that does NOT have clear Bible-Verse support. That strikes me as being totally unthinkable. ``

This particular thread is titled: Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist. I would chat with you on your subject but its not my area of interest and not my area of immediate knowledge and so I would have to stop and start researching it and I simply don't have the motivation to do that. Nonetheless your views are most welcome and thank you for sharing them. ________ This thread is NOT on the subjects you wish to discuss. You can start a thread on your subjects of interest and I think you would do well with such a thread. Best JAG