Excalibur

All daughters of the harlot.

There is no distinction. Anti-Christ and Vicar of Christ mean precisely the same thing. The Pope has taken upon himself the name “Antichrist” without any of his faithful followers realizing it.

Look up ANTI in a lexicon.

So does “anti.” Anti and Vicar are synonymous.

The Pope’s title “Vicar of Christ” literally means Anti-Christ.

The more I read that statement of yours, the more ridiculous it sounds. If either scheme had any “theological merit,” it would’ve been discovered, preached, and taught by the saints through the ages. Instead, you would have us believe God’s people knew nothing about the proper interpretation of the Apocalypse until two Jesuit priests published their Futurist and Preterist commentaries 1500 years later, to counter the interpretations of the Protestant Reformers.

I agree with what you said concerning the antichrist not being restricted to a singular individual. “Antichrist” is a category. This applies equally to the man of sin and all three beasts in the Apocalypse…the latter representing kingdoms or dynasties of men, not individuals (see Daniel). Ironically, your correct statement destroys the foundation of Futurist teaching.

You’re incorrect. My thread title made no argument. My first post made no argument. If that’s what you see, perhaps the issue lies with you? To be clear, I wasn’t attacking the argument because of who said it. My contention is not that Futurism is a false belief because Ribera said it or taught it, but that Futurism is a false belief because he created it out of whole cloth by pushing fulfilled prophecies back into the future once again to divert attention off the Pope. There is no ad hominem in pointing out the pedigree of a belief. You won’t find any Futurist commentaries on the Apocalypse before 1590, the year Ribera published his.

I will keep what you said in mind as I proceed.

How do you figure? I made no argument. Both of my statements are historically verifiable. Both schemes were crafted by jesuits to protect the pope from the darts of the Protestants that identified him and his church as fulfillments of prophecy. Historicism is the only scheme of interpreting the Apocalypse that says the antichrist is presently in our midst.

Futurism (Antichrist still to come) - crafted by the Jesuit Ribera in the 16th century. Preterism (Antichrist was Nero) - crafted by the Jesuit Alcasar in the 17th century.

And what’s the gauge you’re using to determine what has and hasn’t come to pass? Ah…and assuming for the moment that you’re correct with that assumption, what are the chances a single empire would split into ten kingdoms TWICE in its “lifetime?” And by “lifetime,” I mean where in scripture does it say the Roman Empire would split into ten kingdoms upon its fall, revive into a single empire again, and then split into ten kingdoms a second time? Answer: scripture teaches no such thing. Which means the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms via barbarian invasions circa the 5th century is the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Which also means you need to adjust your eschatological beliefs.

1. That verse says nothing about the setting up of a kingdom. 2. What kingdom did God set up in the days of the Roman Empire in the first century, per Dan 2:44?

What’s worse: A Jew who denies Jesus Christ is the Messiah because they claim he didn't set up his kingdom? Or a Jew who believes Jesus Christ IS the Messiah, but is STILL claiming he didn’t set up his kingdom?

Why not look into the origins of your Futurist scheme of interpreting the Apocalypse?