LadyRaven Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted May 20, 2007 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. Show me a singular antichrist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenna Frye Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/13/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/01/1984 Author Share Posted May 20, 2007 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. You say there must be a false religion....Well, if you actually do some in depth study of the Roman Catholic Church, you will find that this church teaches everything contradictory to the Bible, it is a false religion. 1. Baptism of sprinkling water and not submersion. 2. Futuristic Antichrist as a man and not as a nation or power, because it exposes themselves. 3. Worshiping Idols. Catholics worship mary and view her as "another" way to the father. 4. The pope claims to be Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of flesh and claims to have the power to forgive sins - we find that in the Bible, anyone who claims to have this power is blaspheming God. (John 10:30-33) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtwo Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,144 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1978 Share Posted May 20, 2007 You say there must be a false religion....Well, if you actually do some in depth study of the Roman Catholic Church, you will find that this church teaches everything contradictory to the Bible, it is a false religion. 1. Baptism of sprinkling water and not submersion. I'm not going to disagree with the overall point, but I would caution against using the form of baptism as your measuring stick. The word baptism does not, in itself, denote submersion; and though there is discussion of going into the water, there is no word on whether the participants were actually dunked, or whether the water was poured. In fact, the word baptism is suggestive of both/either. The means of baptism for churches depends on the purpose and symbolism. If it is symbolic of a death and new life, certainly submersion is more to the point (though, again, I would say it's not required); while if the purpose of baptism is a cleansing, either one would be sufficient. The point is, the "dunk v. sprinkle" argument is not one the church should be having; and certainly shouldn't be used as a means of revealing a "false religion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2007 The antichrist will likely have a christain background. Like in ministry. After all, It's Christians he is after and like many of our enemies, they come here to learn our cultures first before any military strike. Who are our current christain leaders whom can attract a vast following? Joel Osteen Reverend Jackson Pat Robertson Terry Meeuwsen Bin laden Justaguy Um....justaguy....last time I checked Bin Laden was a muslim and you, by your own admission, a nonbeliever. What about Franklin Graham and Jesus Miranda? Are you planning a career as the A/C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2007 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. Again, are we in the tribulation period? If so, then you're right, the beast has come. If not....then what's your point? 1. Baptism of sprinkling water and not submersion. 2. Futuristic Antichrist as a man and not as a nation or power, because it exposes themselves. 3. Worshiping Idols. Catholics worship mary and view her as "another" way to the father. 4. The pope claims to be Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of flesh and claims to have the power to forgive sins - we find that in the Bible, anyone who claims to have this power is blaspheming God. (John 10:30-33) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted May 20, 2007 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2007 The beast in revelation is not something new, it was that John saw it rise out of the sea. The beast has been here at least since the days of Nimrod and has been the powers behind most all attempts at putting global domination under one set of people. It's just time for it to rise for the last time. Lucifer is behind it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenna Frye Posted May 21, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/13/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/01/1984 Author Share Posted May 21, 2007 You say there must be a false religion....Well, if you actually do some in depth study of the Roman Catholic Church, you will find that this church teaches everything contradictory to the Bible, it is a false religion. 1. Baptism of sprinkling water and not submersion. I'm not going to disagree with the overall point, but I would caution against using the form of baptism as your measuring stick. The word baptism does not, in itself, denote submersion; and though there is discussion of going into the water, there is no word on whether the participants were actually dunked, or whether the water was poured. In fact, the word baptism is suggestive of both/either. The means of baptism for churches depends on the purpose and symbolism. If it is symbolic of a death and new life, certainly submersion is more to the point (though, again, I would say it's not required); while if the purpose of baptism is a cleansing, either one would be sufficient. The point is, the "dunk v. sprinkle" argument is not one the church should be having; and certainly shouldn't be used as a means of revealing a "false religion". There is a clear definition that Jesus was "dunked" and baptize comes from "baptizo" which means to submerge or immerse. Matthew 3:16 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. The fact is that there is clear way of baptism by being immersed in the water, (dunked) and it must be a decision by the person, The Roman Catholic Church also sees no problem with baptizing babies. Babies being baptized means nothing because they are not making the decision, but we can dedicate our children to the lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 The author of this post stated that Martin Luther viewed the Catholic Church as the anti-Christ. That's not true is it? He loved the Church but wanted it to be reformed to reflect the Church as described in Acts. Anyway, far be it from me to be an apologist for the Catholic Church. You want to talk anti-Christs? Muhammad, Karl Marx, Hillary Clinton; now there are some real candidates. Martin Luther said the Pope was the Anti-Christ/Beast and the Whore of Babylon was the Roman Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAW Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 We are so limited in our sight, veiled as we are by the body. I think that many of us will see anti-Christs that meet the definition of Revelations. I have seen and continue to see people who lead a lot of people down what i consider a very dangerous path spiritually. What is an anti-Christ if not that? I do admit that i did have to giggle when i saw Hillary Clinton mentioned as the AC. I don't care for her, but i cannot imagine that she is quite so infamous although, as i said, it depends on who you are and your view. I can certainly imagine that there could be a bestial anti-Christ in the future which will overshadow any historical wicked person imaginable. However, i have to admit that when i think of the anti-Christ, i think of Joseph Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtwo Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,144 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1978 Share Posted May 22, 2007 However, i have to admit that when i think of the anti-Christ, i think of Joseph Smith. that's funny... I think of Hillary Clinton. (just kidding... please let's not really get into the argument of whether HC is the beast). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts