Let's play "Who's the Antichrist THIS WEEK!"

[Bold Believer]

It's popular in Christian circles (and has been for several centuries) to play a ridiculous guessing game which I shall call "Who's the Antichrist THIS WEEK?" Every time a new President is elected, every time a new political figure arises on the world scene, every time some Middle Eastern leader passes gas and causes a stir (LOL), the game begins again. It caused the LORD to make me step back about 25 years ago and take an interesting look at the whole teaching of a personal antichrist dictator. What I found shocked me.

I did a search for the term antichrist. When I did, I found:

1. It is only used 4 times in the entire New Testament.

2. Only one NT writer, John, ever used it.

3. Not one of the other NT writers ever uses it.

4. When the term isused, it's never used of a single individual, but of a group of individuals.

5. It is never used in the context of a world dictator.

6. It's never used in the Book of Revelation, even though John is the only NT writer to use the term.

7. Jesus never used the term.

The fact that Jesus never once used the term made me wonder: If Jesus, the LORD of all things, Maker of Heaven and Earth, never bothered to tell us about 'the antichrist' then maybe, just maybe, something is wrong with using the term the way we're using it. God is not stupid, obviously. If this 'antichrist dictator figure' existed and was SO important, why in the world did Jesus never mention him?

Furthermore, John, the only writer of the NT to ever use the term, never uses it to describe such a person. The people he does use it to describe, he defines so that there is no question in the mind of the reader just whom he is describing.

I urge each of you to do as I did and see if you come to the same conclusions. I suspect if you're really honest, you will.

[arrowfromgod]

ill read up on it again ,,, but im sure that like myself there are many who believe that there will be an antichrist (if he already aint here now in hiding so far )

like the trinity is ,,, i believe the devil copys it

thats why i got kicked out of the church of satan (i quit it ) lets say we agreed i should leave

they taught the unholy trinity and they copyed the catholic church almost to a T including passing the offering plate ,,,(i wont get into black mass)

i says hey son of satan decon dude ,,, why do we got to give offerings to the devil ??? i mean aint satan the all powerful god of this earth or what ??? why aint i rich yet

my point being tho is i believe that there will be a man that will be able to do all the things jesus did (except he will do it for his own glory)

that they will find the arc of the covenent and this anti christ will set upon it declaring himself god (all true satanist believe they are god of there world) and dont believe in the devil like ppl think ...prophecy says this (in my interpretation of it (my opinion ok? ) like that cant change huh? but i have to be convinced by the word

the bible dont mention a unholy trinity (i cant remember one anyway)but i still believe there is one

and tho alot of ppl like to point fingers at the new guy (i hear ya there bro) i still believe he will come

except this guy unlike jesus will be welcomed by this world and not crucified

but i see your point and i'll read up on it again ,arrow from god

[mizzdy]

Should we call this person who will come satans designated ruler, satans right hand man, satans go to man? I agree we shouldn't go around calling every political or any popular leader theantichrist yet there will be one final person that fulfills this 'office'.

[Bold Believer]

There are some good points made here but you have come to a couple of faulty conclusions.

#1 John did use the term to refer to a singular individual. 1st John 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.

It speaks of a singular anti christ and many anti christs, and he was addressing something that his writters knew about, and that was that the anti christ would come, John does not deny this.

#2 Jesus did not use the ''term'' ''anti christ'' but He does use the term false messiah which is the same thing false=anti, and messiah=christ.

#3 Paul specifically speaks of the the man of sin, which we should be able to discern is who John is referring to when he writes we know that anti christ will come.

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one.

1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil.

2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ.

3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

[Bold Believer]

There are some good points made here but you have come to a couple of faulty conclusions.

#1 John did use the term to refer to a singular individual. 1st John 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.

It speaks of a singular anti christ and many anti christs, and he was addressing something that his writters knew about, and that was that the anti christ would come, John does not deny this.

#2 Jesus did not use the ''term'' ''anti christ'' but He does use the term false messiah which is the same thing false=anti, and messiah=christ.

#3 Paul specifically speaks of the the man of sin, which we should be able to discern is who John is referring to when he writes we know that anti christ will come.

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one.

1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil.

2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ.

3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

I will simply say this.

#1 When John said anti christ ''singular would come he was referring to who we know as ''The Anti christ''.

#2 antichristos means in place of Christ not against Christ. The anti christ will come as if he is Christ he will come in the place of Christ he will not come as if he is against Christ.

#3 Paul was speaking of an individual ''The Man of Sin'' singular.

I realize your mind is made up and no one will convince otherwise, but that does not mean your ''truth'' is true.

I expected a better polemic from you Zeke. You have not proven me wrong. You've simply made blanket statements which I've already given refutation to.

What do you with I John 4:3 when John says that antichrist is a spirit?

The Greek prefix anti can mean either in place of OR against, depending upon context.

There is no evidence that Paul was speaking strictly of an individual. IF he was, (and I am not saying that he is), then by context, he would have to be speaking of Gog as the 'man of sin'. There is a restraint which must be removed and it's mentioned in Revelation 20. In order for apostasy to occur, Satan must be released (Rev 20) to be able to deceive the nations on a mass scale.

[Jimmy C]

I love your guys answers Keep em coming

[Bold Believer]

There are some good points made here but you have come to a couple of faulty conclusions.

#1 John did use the term to refer to a singular individual. 1st John 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.

It speaks of a singular anti christ and many anti christs, and he was addressing something that his writters knew about, and that was that the anti christ would come, John does not deny this.

#2 Jesus did not use the ''term'' ''anti christ'' but He does use the term false messiah which is the same thing false=anti, and messiah=christ.

#3 Paul specifically speaks of the the man of sin, which we should be able to discern is who John is referring to when he writes we know that anti christ will come.

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one.

1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil.

2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ.

3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

I will simply say this.

#1 When John said anti christ ''singular would come he was referring to who we know as ''The Anti christ''.

#2 antichristos means in place of Christ not against Christ. The anti christ will come as if he is Christ he will come in the place of Christ he will not come as if he is against Christ.

#3 Paul was speaking of an individual ''The Man of Sin'' singular.

I realize your mind is made up and no one will convince otherwise, but that does not mean your ''truth'' is true.

I expected a better polemic from you Zeke. You have not proven me wrong. You've simply made blanket statements which I've already given refutation to.

What do you with I John 4:3 when John says that antichrist is a spirit?

The Greek prefix anti can mean either in place of OR against, depending upon context.

There is no evidence that Paul was speaking strictly of an individual. IF he was, (and I am not saying that he is), then by context, he would have to be speaking of Gog as the 'man of sin'. There is a restraint which must be removed and it's mentioned in Revelation 20. In order for apostasy to occur, Satan must be released (Rev 20) to be able to deceive the nations on a mass scale.

I didn't say you were wrong in an absolute since. What I did was give my opinion. Now that being said, my point was regardless of what argument I could give even the best of polemics, it would not convince you. Whether you are wrong and I am right or you are right and I am wrong is irrelevant, because you are fully persuaded and no one will ever change your mind.

If I am wring about your mind set the correct me.

ROFL! OK Fonz. (Only an old guy would remember The Fonz and what happened when he tried to say wrong.)

Brother Zeke, you can give your opinion anytime (as long as it agrees with mine), and yes I'm just kidding. I, like most believers today, come from a pre-mil, pre-trib background. It was all I was ever taught, all I ever heard. I kept getting uneasy feelings about the way it was not adding up in the grand scheme of the Word. After long study, I found that there were indeed many things about the position which were simply indefensible historically and theologically. I now call myself a Last Day Rapturist. I defend my position very strongly, sometimes too strongly some folks say, but yes, I'm convinced that I've come very close to the truth. All of the pieces fit the puzzle so far.

I do encourage people to present their polemics though. A little sword fight never hurts to sharpen the blades.

[Bold Believer]

There are some good points made here but you have come to a couple of faulty conclusions.

#1 John did use the term to refer to a singular individual. 1st John 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.

It speaks of a singular anti christ and many anti christs, and he was addressing something that his writters knew about, and that was that the anti christ would come, John does not deny this.

#2 Jesus did not use the ''term'' ''anti christ'' but He does use the term false messiah which is the same thing false=anti, and messiah=christ.

#3 Paul specifically speaks of the the man of sin, which we should be able to discern is who John is referring to when he writes we know that anti christ will come.

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one.

1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil.

2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ.

3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

I will simply say this.

#1 When John said anti christ ''singular would come he was referring to who we know as ''The Anti christ''.

#2 antichristos means in place of Christ not against Christ. The anti christ will come as if he is Christ he will come in the place of Christ he will not come as if he is against Christ.

#3 Paul was speaking of an individual ''The Man of Sin'' singular.

I realize your mind is made up and no one will convince otherwise, but that does not mean your ''truth'' is true.

I expected a better polemic from you Zeke. You have not proven me wrong. You've simply made blanket statements which I've already given refutation to.

What do you with I John 4:3 when John says that antichrist is a spirit?

The Greek prefix anti can mean either in place of OR against, depending upon context.

There is no evidence that Paul was speaking strictly of an individual. IF he was, (and I am not saying that he is), then by context, he would have to be speaking of Gog as the 'man of sin'. There is a restraint which must be removed and it's mentioned in Revelation 20. In order for apostasy to occur, Satan must be released (Rev 20) to be able to deceive the nations on a mass scale.

I didn't say you were wrong in an absolute since. What I did was give my opinion. Now that being said, my point was regardless of what argument I could give even the best of polemics, it would not convince you. Whether you are wrong and I am right or you are right and I am wrong is irrelevant, because you are fully persuaded and no one will ever change your mind.

If I am wring about your mind set the correct me.

ROFL! OK Fonz. (Only an old guy would remember The Fonz and what happened when he tried to say wrong.)

Brother Zeke, you can give your opinion anytime (as long as it agrees with mine), and yes I'm just kidding. I, like most believers today, come from a pre-mil, pre-trib background. It was all I was ever taught, all I ever heard. I kept getting uneasy feelings about the way it was not adding up in the grand scheme of the Word. After long study, I found that there were indeed many things about the position which were simply indefensible historically and theologically. I now call myself a Last Day Rapturist. I defend my position very strongly, sometimes too strongly some folks say, but yes, I'm convinced that I've come very close to the truth. All of the pieces fit the puzzle so far.

I do encourage people to present their polemics though. A little sword fight never hurts to sharpen the blades.

Yes I too enjoy a good sword fight lol, I was brought up as you were pre mil, pre trib. Now I am what you would call a Historical Premillennialist. I believe in a 3.5 years tribulation not 7 years (where yes the anti christ will reign) and in the post trib premilleniual return of Christ were at that time He will resurrect the just, rapture the living saints, restore the Jews, and destroy the wicked with fire. The pretrib rapture is an invention of the 19th/20th century with no biblical basis what so ever.

P.S. it is called Historical Premillennialism, because it is the view of the first Christian including John the Revelator, Polycarp, and Ireneus, who live after 70AD, they did not believe the tribulation had past but was still in the future.

John DID believe it. He told the church at Philadelphia that they would be delivered out of it. He was speaking to those of his own time.

[irishcowboy]

It's popular in Christian circles (and has been for several centuries) to play a ridiculous guessing game which I shall call "Who's the Antichrist THIS WEEK?" Every time a new President is elected, every time a new political figure arises on the world scene, every time some Middle Eastern leader passes gas and causes a stir (LOL), the game begins again. It caused the LORD to make me step back about 25 years ago and take an interesting look at the whole teaching of a personal antichrist dictator. What I found shocked me.

I did a search for the term antichrist. When I did, I found:

1. It is only used 4 times in the entire New Testament.

2. Only one NT writer, John, ever used it.

3. Not one of the other NT writers ever uses it.

4. When the term isused, it's never used of a single individual, but of a group of individuals.

5. It is never used in the context of a world dictator.

6. It's never used in the Book of Revelation, even though John is the only NT writer to use the term.

7. Jesus never used the term.

The fact that Jesus never once used the term made me wonder: If Jesus, the LORD of all things, Maker of Heaven and Earth, never bothered to tell us about 'the antichrist' then maybe, just maybe, something is wrong with using the term the way we're using it. God is not stupid, obviously. If this 'antichrist dictator figure' existed and was SO important, why in the world did Jesus never mention him?

Furthermore, John, the only writer of the NT to ever use the term, never uses it to describe such a person. The people he does use it to describe, he defines so that there is no question in the mind of the reader just whom he is describing.

I urge each of you to do as I did and see if you come to the same conclusions. I suspect if you're really honest, you will.

and you do not have a grandfather either, for the Bible never says there is a such a thing.

and about those that are against Bold Believer, are they not concidered anti-boldbeliever, how about those that are for Christ? are they called Pro-Christ? or those that are for Bolb Believer called pro-Bold believer? or maybe they should be called Bold Believerist....

there are a very vast amount of words and terms and phrases that are not in the Bible.... this does not mean they do not exist, or that the term is not a valid term.

how about the word Trinity? you can not locat that word either.... but the concept is in the Bible.... God is in the Begining, and the Spirit of God is in the begining... and the Word is in the begining, and the Word is with God and the Word Is God... and ......... yet there are people that will swear up an down on everything in heaven above and on the earth and everything below the earth that the trinity is not true....

I will continue on my studies, (am back in the Old Test at this time, Samual to be exact) and will make my way toward this subj again, soon i am sure, as the Lord leads...... this will be something I will look into deeper....

mike

[irishcowboy]

There are some good points made here but you have come to a couple of faulty conclusions.

#1 John did use the term to refer to a singular individual. 1st John 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.

It speaks of a singular anti christ and many anti christs, and he was addressing something that his writters knew about, and that was that the anti christ would come, John does not deny this.

#2 Jesus did not use the ''term'' ''anti christ'' but He does use the term false messiah which is the same thing false=anti, and messiah=christ.

#3 Paul specifically speaks of the the man of sin, which we should be able to discern is who John is referring to when he writes we know that anti christ will come.

Hi Zeke, I trimmed my post out of your reply so this doesn't trail halfway down the page. I'll answer your points one by one.

1. John says antichrist shall come. Not 'the' antichrist. The definite article is not present. Furthermore, in I John 4:3, the definite article is not present there either. He says in I John 4:3 literally, 'this is that spirit of antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now in the world.' So then antichrist is a spirit that influences men to BE antichrists, specifically the demonic entity behind Gnosticism which made the claim that Christ could not have possibly inhabited a fleshly body because the flesh is evil and God could not exist in something evil.

2. Jesus used the word pseudochristos, NOT antichristos. Two completely different terms. One means fake Christs. The other means against Christ, or in the place of Christ.

3. Paul is speaking not of a single individual, but a category of individuals which would come at the apostasy. These people believe themselves to be god. They despise the things of God. They despise the very idea of any god, the true one OR any false god. They have been permitted by God to believe THE LIE. John calls them.........MAGOG and says that they come from the four corners of the earth and number as the sands of the sea. (Rev 20) They are currently here. Marching to surround us, the Holy City set on a hill. Notice he uses the word 'they' later down the page, not he. He calls Timothy 'man of God' in another passage. Is Timothy the only man of God? Of course not. For a grand example of Magogism at its finest, I recommend Humanist Manifesto 2. Gog, in the context of Rev 20, is Satan, released from his prison to re-deceive the nations again that they can be as god, knowing good and evil.

I will simply say this.

#1 When John said anti christ ''singular would come he was referring to who we know as ''The Anti christ''.

#2 antichristos means in place of Christ not against Christ. The anti christ will come as if he is Christ he will come in the place of Christ he will not come as if he is against Christ.

#3 Paul was speaking of an individual ''The Man of Sin'' singular.

I realize your mind is made up and no one will convince otherwise, but that does not mean your ''truth'' is true.

I expected a better polemic from you Zeke. You have not proven me wrong. You've simply made blanket statements which I've already given refutation to.

What do you with I John 4:3 when John says that antichrist is a spirit?

The Greek prefix anti can mean either in place of OR against, depending upon context.

There is no evidence that Paul was speaking strictly of an individual. IF he was, (and I am not saying that he is), then by context, he would have to be speaking of Gog as the 'man of sin'. There is a restraint which must be removed and it's mentioned in Revelation 20. In order for apostasy to occur, Satan must be released (Rev 20) to be able to deceive the nations on a mass scale.

I didn't say you were wrong in an absolute since. What I did was give my opinion. Now that being said, my point was regardless of what argument I could give even the best of polemics, it would not convince you. Whether you are wrong and I am right or you are right and I am wrong is irrelevant, because you are fully persuaded and no one will ever change your mind.

If I am wring about your mind set the correct me.

ROFL! OK Fonz. (Only an old guy would remember The Fonz and what happened when he tried to say wrong.)

Brother Zeke, you can give your opinion anytime (as long as it agrees with mine), and yes I'm just kidding. I, like most believers today, come from a pre-mil, pre-trib background. It was all I was ever taught, all I ever heard. I kept getting uneasy feelings about the way it was not adding up in the grand scheme of the Word. After long study, I found that there were indeed many things about the position which were simply indefensible historically and theologically. I now call myself a Last Day Rapturist. I defend my position very strongly, sometimes too strongly some folks say, but yes, I'm convinced that I've come very close to the truth. All of the pieces fit the puzzle so far.

I do encourage people to present their polemics though. A little sword fight never hurts to sharpen the blades.

Yes I too enjoy a good sword fight lol, I was brought up as you were pre mil, pre trib. Now I am what you would call a Historical Premillennialist. I believe in a 3.5 years tribulation not 7 years (where yes the anti christ will reign) and in the post trib premilleniual return of Christ were at that time He will resurrect the just, rapture the living saints, restore the Jews, and destroy the wicked with fire. The pretrib rapture is an invention of the 19th/20th century with no biblical basis what so ever.

P.S. it is called Historical Premillennialism, because it is the view of the first Christian including John the Revelator, Polycarp, and Ireneus, who live after 70AD, they did not believe the tribulation had past but was still in the future.

John DID believe it. He told the church at Philadelphia that they would be delivered out of it. He was speaking to those of his own time.

he was not only speaking to those of his own time, but also for the times to come.

if you look at the 7 churches, you will see that just about every church fellowship in this day fits one or more of them, and those that say they do not fit, probably have a multiple setting of maybe even three or four of them. I surely would not want to see a church that had all 7 running through it..... but it could happen....

which church are we receiving the letter for today?

something about prophecy, a very good amount of the prophecy has a two and sometimes a three fold time to it, one soon, and one far off down the road a piece, and some have one soon and one midway down the road and one well into the future...

some of the events in history, were/are forshadowings of things which are yet to come. some things written in the past, are for the future as well and for our time...... that is one reason it is called THE LIVING WORD........

mike