Proposition: There Is No Bible-Verse Argument For A Future Antichrist.

[Diaste]

50 minutes ago, JAG** said:

 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

 

 

 

The Identification of what or what is not 'antichrist' by John's definition is 'denial Jesus is the Messiah and the denial of the Father and the Son'.

If that's the case, and it literally is the case, then we have a multitude of 'antichrists' living among us today. The year 2020 is the far off future from John's day so your initial premise is proven false.

Ignoring others opposing points with the tired mantra, "All the above is nothing  more than your personal assumptions and your personal interpretative speculations." is rudely dismissive. I have heard that behavior called narcissistic psychopathy. I think it more just plain bad.

I have to hand it to you...dancing around a critical fact in rigid determination to remain willfully ignorant is impressive.

Iteration ad infinitum is boring. Perhaps you could make some new weak arguments from other false premises?

[JAG**]

2 hours ago, douggg said:

One question...

Did Dr. Loraine Boettner ever say that the Antichrist

concept is rooted in  "the Christ" concept of being the

King of Israel ?

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

 

[douggg]

35 minutes ago, JAG** said:

My view is the answer to your question is No. 

..........

So I do not think Dr. Boettner  ever mentioned what you asked me about. 

JAG

 

I don't think you nor the now deceased Dr Boettner are getting it.

"The Antichrist" is not a universal title to be applied to the arch villain of the end times.     It is done, but it is done in error.    What people should be doing is saying "the person as......"

First the concept of the antichrist has to be understood on the premise that "the Christ" function is to be the King of Israel.    The person is the Antichrist only for the time he is the King of Israel.     One of the functions being the leader of Israel, Moses made it requirement that the leader of Israel give a big speech to the nation, on a 7 year cycle, essentially confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant.     That speech will be the confirming of the covenant for 7 years in Daniel 9:27, as the Jews will think he is the messiah - promised King of Israel.

 

The bible presents a biography of the person.    From his beginning to his end - when Jesus returns, bringing the Kingdom of God to the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by douggg

[JAG**]

45 minutes ago, Diaste said:

The Identification of what or what is not 'antichrist' by John's definition is 'denial Jesus is the Messiah and the denial of the Father and the Son'.

If that's the case, and it literally is the case, then we have a multitude of 'antichrists' living among us today. The year 2020 is the far off future from John's day so your initial premise is proven false.

Ignoring others opposing points with the tired mantra, "All the above is nothing  more than your personal assumptions and your personal interpretative speculations." is rudely dismissive. I have heard that behavior called narcissistic psychopathy. I think it more just plain bad.

I have to hand it to you...dancing around a critical fact in rigid determination to remain willfully ignorant is impressive.

Iteration ad infinitum is boring. Perhaps you could make some new weak arguments from other false premises?

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.

Edited August 1, 2020 by JAG**

[douggg]

@JAG**

The biography of the person.    Not calling him the Antichrist in the universal sense - which is an error done by just about everyone.    Dr Boettner was making an argument in that direction, but it was the wrong argument.

 

 

The person starts as the little horn, then is the prince who shall come in Daniel 9, who is perceived by the Jews as the messiah. He is then anointed the King of Israel, becoming the Antichrist, and confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years, as directed by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. After approximately 3 years, he commits the transgression of desolation,ending his time as the Antichrist, as he is revealed as the man of sin and not the messiah after all. God has the person killed; and in disdain for him brings him back to life. At which time the spirit of the serpent ascends out of the bottomless pit possessing the person - making the person the beast in Revelation 13.

Edited August 1, 2020 by douggg

[JAG**]

25 minutes ago, douggg said:

I don't think you nor the now deceased Dr Boettner are getting it.

"The Antichrist" is not a universal title to be applied to the arch villain of the end times.     It is done, but it is done in error.    What people should be doing is saying "the person as......"

First the concept of the antichrist has to be understood on the premise that "the Christ" function is to be the King of Israel.    The person is the Antichrist only for the time he is the King of Israel.     One of the functions being the leader of Israel, Moses made it requirement that the leader of Israel give a big speech to the nation, on a 7 year cycle, essentially confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant.     That speech will be the confirming of the covenant for 7 years in Daniel 9:27, as the Jews will think he is the messiah - promised King of Israel.

 

The bible presents a biography of the person.    From his beginning to his end - when Jesus returns, bringing the Kingdom of God to the earth.

 

 

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

 

[douggg]

12 minutes ago, JAG** said:

My title asks for a Bible Verse. Do you have one?

I presented the bible verses previously in another post of mine in this thread, that the Antichrist will come.  

the bible verses are 1John2:18,  and John 5:43.

 

1John 2:18 Little children, 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.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Antichrist has not arrived yet.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get away from "antichrist shall come" text.    The one singular antichrist.

 

The only valid argument is that the person is not the Antichrist except for when he is the King of Israel coming in his own name.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by douggg

[JAG**]

1 minute ago, douggg said:

I presented the bible verses previously in another post of mine in this thread, that the Antichrist will come.  

the bible verses are 1John2:18,  and John 5:43.

 

1John 2:18 Little children, 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.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Antichrist has not arrived yet.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get away from "antichrist shall come" text.

 

The only valid argument is that the person is not the Antichrist except for when he is the King of Israel coming in his own name.

 

 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

[douggg]

7 minutes ago, JAG** said:

 I do not desire to get away from it. See below.

(2) "even NOW many antichrists have come." (John's antichrist were there in the first century)

 

The fact that John said "even now" are there many antichrists is an indication that the antichrist was not in his day.    John is contrasting his time to the future when the antichrist shall come.

 

John was also likening them who had either left Christianity, or were still claiming to be Christians but were spreading false doctrines - to the future singular antichrist - by calling them "antichrists".

Edited August 1, 2020 by douggg

[JAG**]

5 minutes ago, douggg said:

 [ . . . . .]

 Post deleted by JAG

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by JAG**