Antichrist

[Kenna Frye]

I have come to the same conclusion as all the Reformer like Martin Luther in viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist beast power in Revelation 13 and the little horn in Daniel 7. Can anyone show me a different view without saying that the Antichrist is still in the future. I am only interested in the Historic view of Bible prophecy. That is just my preference, so please don't fill this topic up with futurist teaching. PLEASE! Thanks to everyone in advance for your help in my studies.

[apothanein kerdos]

I have come to the same conclusion as all the Reformer like Martin Luther in viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist beast power in Revelation 13 and the little horn in Daniel 7. Can anyone show me a different view without saying that the Antichrist is still in the future. I am only interested in the Historic view of Bible prophecy. That is just my preference, so please don't fill this topic up with futurist teaching. PLEASE! Thanks to everyone in advance for your help in my studies.

Well that's a horrible and inadequate view to hold. It is prophecy, it has yet to occur.

It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, considering such an entity didn't exist during Daniel's time, or John's time for that matter.

[rtwo]

I have come to the same conclusion as all the Reformer like Martin Luther in viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist beast power in Revelation 13 and the little horn in Daniel 7. Can anyone show me a different view without saying that the Antichrist is still in the future. I am only interested in the Historic view of Bible prophecy. That is just my preference, so please don't fill this topic up with futurist teaching. PLEASE! Thanks to everyone in advance for your help in my studies.

Well that's a horrible and inadequate view to hold. It is prophecy, it has yet to occur.

It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, considering such an entity didn't exist during Daniel's time, or John's time for that matter.

Um... aren't those two statements a bit contradictary? First, it's not right, because it's prophecy and hasn't occurred yet, then it's not right because the RCC didn't exist yet? I'm not disagreeing with the basic sentiment (that the antichrist probably -isn't- the RCC), but your arguments don't really hold because they contradict one another.

[apothanein kerdos]

I have come to the same conclusion as all the Reformer like Martin Luther in viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist beast power in Revelation 13 and the little horn in Daniel 7. Can anyone show me a different view without saying that the Antichrist is still in the future. I am only interested in the Historic view of Bible prophecy. That is just my preference, so please don't fill this topic up with futurist teaching. PLEASE! Thanks to everyone in advance for your help in my studies.

Well that's a horrible and inadequate view to hold. It is prophecy, it has yet to occur.

It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, considering such an entity didn't exist during Daniel's time, or John's time for that matter.

Um... aren't those two statements a bit contradictary? First, it's not right, because it's prophecy and hasn't occurred yet, then it's not right because the RCC didn't exist yet? I'm not disagreeing with the basic sentiment (that the antichrist probably -isn't- the RCC), but your arguments don't really hold because they contradict one another.

How? The first one states the absurd nature of what the person is saying. The second one operates under her paradigm.

Regardless, it's still not going to be the Roman Catholic Church. The Anti-Christ raises a false religion himself. It is a religion that has yet to exist.

[rtwo]

I have come to the same conclusion as all the Reformer like Martin Luther in viewing the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist beast power in Revelation 13 and the little horn in Daniel 7. Can anyone show me a different view without saying that the Antichrist is still in the future. I am only interested in the Historic view of Bible prophecy. That is just my preference, so please don't fill this topic up with futurist teaching. PLEASE! Thanks to everyone in advance for your help in my studies.

Well that's a horrible and inadequate view to hold. It is prophecy, it has yet to occur.

It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, considering such an entity didn't exist during Daniel's time, or John's time for that matter.

Um... aren't those two statements a bit contradictary? First, it's not right, because it's prophecy and hasn't occurred yet, then it's not right because the RCC didn't exist yet? I'm not disagreeing with the basic sentiment (that the antichrist probably -isn't- the RCC), but your arguments don't really hold because they contradict one another.

How? The first one states the absurd nature of what the person is saying. The second one operates under her paradigm.

Regardless, it's still not going to be the Roman Catholic Church. The Anti-Christ raises a false religion himself. It is a religion that has yet to exist.

So then they -were- contradictory. One was using your worldview, and one was using the other person's. Anyway:

How do you know it doesn't exist yet? That's part of my point. Clearly it is prophecy, but it's not like it was written yesterday. The absurdity here is the idea that a 2000-year-old prophecy couldn't possibly have started coming to fruition when the RCC formed, or that it's not coming to be right at this moment.

Let us remember that these visionary books are largely symbolic and, just as a single creature may symbolize many nations, so might one man symbolize many -- or even an entire religion itself.

Perhaps Islam is the anti-Christ.

[apothanein kerdos]

How do you know it doesn't exist yet? That's part of my point. Clearly it is prophecy, but it's not like it was written yesterday. The absurdity here is the idea that a 2000-year-old prophecy couldn't possibly have started coming to fruition when the RCC formed, or that it's not coming to be right at this moment.

Because Revelation says the religion was established by the Anti-Christ, with the sole intent of the followers worshiping him.

Fact is - such a religion does not exist yet because there is no Anti-Christ.

[rtwo]

How do you know it doesn't exist yet? That's part of my point. Clearly it is prophecy, but it's not like it was written yesterday. The absurdity here is the idea that a 2000-year-old prophecy couldn't possibly have started coming to fruition when the RCC formed, or that it's not coming to be right at this moment.

Because Revelation says the religion was established by the Anti-Christ, with the sole intent of the followers worshiping him.

Fact is - such a religion does not exist yet because there is no Anti-Christ.

How do you know? Again, there is a lot of room for interpretation here. The Revelation doesn't actually mention an anti-Christ, but a Beast, whom some have referred to as the "anti-Christ". The actual word, I think, is found in Daniel. As I said - lots of room to interpret. Some people think some of the imagary refers to jets, tanks and helecopters (which, as you pointed out about the RCC, didn't exist yet). The multi-horned beast, as I said, may or may not refer to many nations. This "anti-Christ" may be born, may already be at work -- and may not even be a single person at all.

[apothanein kerdos]

How do you know? Again, there is a lot of room for interpretation here.

The language is very specific - it will be established by the Anti-Christ. Whether this "Beast" is many people, one person, etc., it doesn't matter. The Beast has yet to come, ergo, the religion does not exist.

[rtwo]

How do you know? Again, there is a lot of room for interpretation here.

The language is very specific - it will be established by the Anti-Christ. Whether this "Beast" is many people, one person, etc., it doesn't matter. The Beast has yet to come, ergo, the religion does not exist.

You're going to have to point out this language. You said it was in the Revelation, but I would again point out that the word "anti-Christ" is -not- a word in that book. And again, you're using the argument that the "beast" hasn't come, but you offer no proof of this.

[VRSpock]

Paganism/religous spirit is the harlot mentioned in revelation and modern day churches are riddled with it as is our society as a whole....and this was also the case at the time of the writing of these scriptures. The hypocritical pharisees that Christ challenged were also riddled with the spirit of religion.

The great harlot, IMHO, is the one world church that embraces compromise of G-d's truth in exchange for a false sense of peace and tranquility and chooses to water down G-d's Word in a sense of tolerance and compromise of the Truth.

It is not the Catholic church or any other singled out group, but is the weeds that are spread among the wheat in the field. The only reason that the Catholic church becomes such a focal point is because for quite some time, the post-nicean church was only identified as the Catholic church. The Early church was neither Roman Catholic nor did it have any roots in paganism, but was rooted in the Torah and biblical Judiasm. It was the stripping away of those roots that have led us to where we are today with the solemn worship of pagan roman gods in the emperial throne room so well preserved within modern churches which was recently noted by a narrator on the Discovery Channel doing a historical look into the Roman empire.

G-d is moving and is calling the Body of Christ into a deeper relationship with Him. Those that truly know Christ in a personal way will press in while those who do not will sit in contentment right where they are, regardless of their denominational background.

One thing that the Lord has revealed to me is that, in reality, there are only two groups....those with Him...and those against Him. Divisons that are percieved by men are of no importance.