The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet
Debate Rounds (5)
1. To accept, you must think that the antichrist is evident as of September 1st, 2013.
2. Round 1 is acceptance and con must present the person (or people) who they think the Antichrist of the Christian religion.
3. Rounds 2-5 is no holds barred.
I'm going to have to agree with Sir Isaac Newton on this one and say that the "antichrist" isn't one person, it's a role that can be identified as the pope of the Catholic Church. This is not a blatant attack on Catholocism, as I will try to be as apologetic towards the catholic church as I possibly can, nevertheless, this church is the cause of the apostacy that is linked with the antichrist.
I look forward to an intriguing and thought-provoking discussion on the end times that lead up to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rebuttal 1: The Antichrist is ONLY ONE PERSON.
"I'm going to have to agree with Sir Isaac Newton on this one and say that the "antichrist" isn't one person, it's a role that can be identified as the pope of the Catholic Church."
The role of the Antichrist is strictly only one figure, as told by the Christian bible. Here is a bible verse referring to the Antichrist as only one figure. It is located in 2 Thessalonians.
"Don"t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and THE MAN of lawlessness is revealed, THE MAN doomed to destruction. And then the lawless ONE will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming."
This bible passage refers to "the man" and "the one", indicating that the Antichrist is only one person multiple times.
Contention 1: There is no Antichrist that is Evident Yet
Now that we've established that the Antichrist is strictly one person, I am officially stating that there's no single "human figure" that can be proven to be the Antichrist, yet. To be the Antichrist, one must meet all the criteria that the Christian bible describes about the Antichrist. There's no "human figure" that meets all of the criteria of the Antichrist, yet.
In Conclusion: I have proven biblically how the Antichrist of Christianity can only be one person. I have also stated that there's nobody that meets all the criteria of the Antichrist as of this time. My opponent must state who he thinks the Antichrist is. I await my opponent's next argument.
2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless theapostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way."
Paul said that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the first century AD. Also, the man of lawlessness would not be revealed until the apostasy (Greek: apostasia- falling away, defection (1)) came first. The apostasy was the catholic church introducing such doctrines as the worship of mary, the veneration of symbols, the prayers to saints, and eventually the universal pope.
“Whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of antichrist.” -Pope Gregory (2)
The apostasy is revealed, and the man of lawlessness is understood to being a pope, as he alone sits in a temple of God (a church) and dispalys himself out to be God.
Now, when Jesus returns, he will overthrow the Catholic Church, and that would require him to denounce the Pope at his arrival, which is why the passages refer to it as one man. So, we can understand that the Papacy is the line of the antichrist, the false prophet leading people into apostasy, and one day the Messiah will return to annihilate this church and replace it with truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:4 - He will be against and put himself above any so called god or anything that people worship.
Definition of Pope: The bishop of Rome as head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Definition of Roman Catholic Church: The Christian Church based in the Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy.
Therefore, if the Pope is the leader of a religion that believes in the God of Christianity and Jesus Christ, then the Pope would believe in God. How would a leader of the Catholics and a believer in God not believe in the God of Christianity? It makes no sense.
Rebuttal 2: Pope Francis (the Current Pope) Is Not The Evident Antichrist
Although you never directly stated that you think Pope Francis could be the Antichrist, due to the fact that you must come up with a person that is the evident antichrist and you think the Antichrist will be a Pope, Pope Francis would be the only possibility according to your theory. In that case, Pope Francis isn't the evident Antichrist due to the fact that he hasn't fulfilled all of the biblical prophecies of the Antichrist. Here are a couple examples of prophecies he has not yet fulfilled.
He will oppose God - 2 Thessalonians 2:4
His kingdom will devour the whole earth - Daniel 7:23
These are just two of many other prophecies he has not yet fulfilled, but you get the picture.
I have showed why the Antichrist cannot be a Catholic or a Pope. I have also showed why current Pope, Pope Francis, cannot be the Antichrist. My opponent must show how the Pope who believes in the Catholic faith and follows God can oppose God and show how Pope Francis is the evident Antichrist (due to the fact that the Antichrist must be evident and he thinks that the Antichrist will be a Pope), or he can give me the name of another person who he thinks is the evident Antichrist. I await my opponent's next argument.
The pope is not a leader of a religion that believes in the God of Christianity. The Christian God is One in nature, being, and person. Yet, the Catholic church worships a god that is a Trinity, which is a concept that can't even pass through a logical examination as it defies all princples of reason.
"He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time."
The Catholic Church has slaughtered people of it's own religion for "heresy" over many centuries, the Pope claims himself to be the Vicar of Christ, and they have made many alterations to the creeds of their faith. The alterations of law over a "time, times, and half a time" most likely resembles a period of many years, thus meaning the antichrist isn't one person, but a position that covers a long span of time. The Catholic Church fulfils all of the requirements from this verse.
"And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent."
The woman in this vision is the true group of worshipprs, and she was sent into the wilderness for a time, times, and half a time, the same amount of length as will the antichrist reign, which is a vast amount of time. Those who have stayed away from the teachings of the Catholic church are those who have been saved from the dragon.
" Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon."
A beast in prophecy never resembles one person or one king; it resembles a nation or kingdom. This particular beast will have horns like a lamb (meaning it will resemble truth) but it will speak as a dragon (meaning it will spout lies that seem to resemble truth).
"Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality.” 3 And he carried me away [a]in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and [b]adorned with gold and precious [c]stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, 5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” 6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the [d]saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus."
Now, again, the woman resembles a particular group of religous people. It is also called the mother of harlots. This would make the Protestants the daughters to the mother- the Catholic church. Also, the church has killed many Christians over the years for "heresy" when they were really getting "drunk with the blood of the saints and the witnesses of Jesus."
"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Jesus himself acknowledged that most Christians would not belong to the truth because they would be cauth up by the teachings of the antichrist figure that reigns over a time, times, and half a time. Now, my opponent may try to argue that the time, times, and half a time is only a short period of time, but considering all of the events and the accumulation of martyred saints, it is much more likely to believe that this is a very long period of time.
"Now, again, the woman resembles a particular group of religous people. It is also called the mother of harlots. This would make the Protestants the daughters to the mother- the Catholic church. Also, the church has killed many Christians over the years for "heresy" when they were really getting "drunk with the blood of the saints and the witnesses of Jesus."
While there were times that the Catholic Church killed people for not being part of the Catholic church and being Protestants/Christians, it hasn't been like this for all of history. After the Protestant Reformation, the Catholics had a Counter Revolution in which they changed some of the things about the Catholic church. One of the things that was changed was that the church now accepted different beliefs, such as Protestantism and Christianity. More specifically, the church would no longer kill people because of their beliefs. So, the entire church as a whole hasn't been killing people for their beliefs in the past 500 years.
I'm sure there have been extremists who have killed people on a smaller scale since then. However, Christians have done this, too. There probably have been Christian extremists who have killed people in the name of God. So, saying that Catholic extremists who kill people makes the church as a whole evil would also be applicable to Christianity. As you and I both know, Christianity doesn"t condone murder. Therefore, any Catholic who kills someone shouldn't be a reflection of the Catholic church's theories.
To conclude this rebuttal, if you're talking about Catholics killing people 500 years and above ago, then the rules of the church are different, so everything that happened within that time period is invalid. If you're talking about the killings within the past 500 years, then that's something that extremists do, not the church as a whole. Any murder that has been committed by a Catholic is not a valid excuse to assume that the entire church is evil.
Rebuttal 2: Rest of Your Argument
Besides your comments about Catholics killing people of other religions, the rest of your argument isn"t quite up to par with proving your theory. While you present a theory, it doesn"t have any actual evidence supporting your claims. Therefore, until you support your claims with evidence, your theory is false.
Contention 1: Proving all Popes are the Antichrist
Since you claim that the Antichrist is multiple people who have shared a leadership role throughout history and that the Catholic Church is where the Antichrists come from, all of the popes would need to fit the identity of the Antichrist to prove your theory. There have been 266 popes as of September 6th, 2013. Therefore, you must prove that all 266 popes of history meet all the criteria of the Antichrist to prove that the Antichrist is in fact more than one person and that the Antichrists are all of the people who held power in the Catholic church.
I have shown how the Catholic church no longer kills people for their anti-Catholic beliefs and that all previous killings condoned by the Catholic church are invalid arguments considering the killings condoned by the Catholic church happened before the Counter Revolution. Based on his theory, I have also stated that to prove that all popes of the Catholic church are the Antichrist, my opponent must prove that all 266 popes of history meet all the criteria of the Antichrist. I await my opponent"s next argument.
Dark Catholic History
"I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus." Revelation
To further stress my point, this issue must first be clarified. Now, there is much debate on how much the catholic church has killed over its long period of power. Many scholars and historians have tried to produce adequate numbers that hold true to religious history. Here is a quote from such an historian:
"From the birth of Popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of popery."
(Dowling, History of Romanism, pages 541,521. New York: 1871)
Now, fifty million murders is not an issue to be passed aside. I understand that modern Catholocism is not to blame for these atrocities, nor are they the same people as their antique counterparts. However, this is the bloody history of the church, the basis of which modern Catholocism is founded upon. This dark history is vital to the present day.
Matthew 24:5,24 "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many." "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."
This passage, taken at face value, does not seem to be fulfilled. This prophecy calls for many false christs to lead even the elect astray. After taking a look at the history of the past 2000 years, we do not see many false christs having mislead many people.
However, in light of understanding Greek and Latin, the prophecy sheds much light.
Antichrist (Greek antichristos)- either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah.
Vicar of Christ (Latin Vicarius)- substitute of Christ
Martin Luther, one of the biggest influences of the Protestants, believed the office of the pope to be the antichrist.
In fact, many of the early reformers held this position, and as time has gone by and as the Catholic Church has become less hostile towards "heretics", this idea has dissipated. I greatly appreciate the better relationship between the Catholic and Protestant churches now, and hope this may continue to last. However, much of the theology and doctrines of the Catholic Church are fallacious, along with some of the Protestant doctrines that were kept when they left Catholocism. Luckily, God judges the hearts of each individual man: Jeremiah 17:10 "“I, Yahweh, search the heart, I test themind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." So, everyone will be tested by their hearts, but the office of the papacy goes against the will of God, and it will one day be abolished when Jesus returns to build Ezekiel's Temple.
Rebuttal 1: Restating My Points
"Now, fifty million murders is not an issue to be passed aside. I understand that modern Catholocism is not to blame for these atrocities, nor are they the same people as their antique counterparts. However, this is the bloody history of the church, the basis of which modern Catholocism is founded upon. This dark history is vital to the present day."
Once again, the Counter Revolution changed some of the basic concepts of the Catholic church. As you put it, Modern day Catholicism can not be blamed for the murders that were supported by the Catholic church 500 YEARS AGO. Catholics today are not evil because of something other Catholics did many years ago. Read this point I made in Round 4.
"I'm sure there have been extremists who have killed people on a smaller scale since then. However, Christians have done this, too. There probably have been Christian extremists who have killed people in the name of God. So, saying that Catholic extremists who kill people makes the church as a whole evil would also be applicable to Christianity. As you and I both know, Christianity doesn't condone murder. Therefore, any Catholic who kills someone shouldn't be a reflection of the Catholic church's theories."
Your quote: "However, much of the theology and doctrines of the Catholic Church are fallacious, along with some of the Protestant doctrines that were kept when they left Catholocism."
This still doesn't prove that all Popes of the Catholic church are the Antichrists. All that statement tells me is your opinion, which is not backed by facts. Plus, you even stated that nobody really has misled many people from Christianity. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
"After taking a look at the history of the past 2000 years, we do not see many false christs having mislead many people."
Contention 1: You Still Have Not Proven Your Theory
Not much to say that already hasn't been said. It's this simple; If you think that all the Popes of the Catholic church are the antichrists, you need to prove that with biblical evidence. All you have done is hinted at the fact that the Catholic church might (I stress that word) be corrupt/evil. You haven't proven what you need to prove to make your theory correct.
Final Conclusion: My opponent hasn't yet proven that the Antichrist of the Christian religion is actually several leaders from the Catholic church (the 266 Popes), but rather, has given his opinion on why the Catholic church is evil/immoral. To prove his theory, he must show how all 266 popes that have ever existed meet all the criteria of the Antichrist. I await my opponent's final argument.
Lupricona forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.