Total Posts:351|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Son of perdition

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:50:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

Scripturally the Antichrist includes any who, as Paul put it, "preach another Christ than the one we preach"

That in fact includes the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, because they all teach an untrue Christ, a counterfeit, a triune Christ. Incidentally PGA comes under that heading, though he would probably say I do.

God and Christ are not called father and son for nothing, they are in fact father and son. The son who came to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and become the Christ was in fact, as scripture tells us God's (only begotten Son" (John 1:14).

He is also, by the same token, the "beginning of the creation by God" Revelation 3:14) and therefore, the "first-born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17).

Those who wish to persuade you to believe their Satanic teaching will give you all sorts of convoluted reasons why you should not believe that, unfortunately for them the Apostles evidently did, because more than once throughout scripture they are found praising, not Christ, not the son, but "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 et al).

Even after his death and resurrection Christ told Mary that he has a God. (John 20:17).

Those who teach this fake Christ are, whether they realise it or not, doing the work of Satan by drawing people away from the True God, whose holy name has been removed from most of their translations, and was declared to Moses to be YHWH or JHVH depending on which transliteration you choose, and is known in English as Jehovah.

That is all clearly stated in scripture.

If you want an idea of what the bible really teaches, feel free to check out the link in my signature. No-one need ever know, lol.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:54:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:50:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

Scripturally the Antichrist includes any who, as Paul put it, "preach another Christ than the one we preach"

That in fact includes the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, because they all teach an untrue Christ, a counterfeit, a triune Christ. Incidentally PGA comes under that heading, though he would probably say I do.

God and Christ are not called father and son for nothing, they are in fact father and son. The son who came to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and become the Christ was in fact, as scripture tells us God's (only begotten Son" (John 1:14).

He is also, by the same token, the "beginning of the creation by God" Revelation 3:14) and therefore, the "first-born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17).

Those who wish to persuade you to believe their Satanic teaching will give you all sorts of convoluted reasons why you should not believe that, unfortunately for them the Apostles evidently did, because more than once throughout scripture they are found praising, not Christ, not the son, but "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 et al).

Even after his death and resurrection Christ told Mary that he has a God. (John 20:17).

Those who teach this fake Christ are, whether they realise it or not, doing the work of Satan by drawing people away from the True God, whose holy name has been removed from most of their translations, and was declared to Moses to be YHWH or JHVH depending on which transliteration you choose, and is known in English as Jehovah.

That is all clearly stated in scripture.

If you want an idea of what the bible really teaches, feel free to check out the link in my signature. No-one need ever know, lol.

So, nothing to do with the prophecy of the antichrist? Please, do try to stay on topic.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).

Which in fact it self-evidently is to those who understand it and recognise it's accuracy even in areas that no human could have been aware of.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:54:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:50:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

Scripturally the Antichrist includes any who, as Paul put it, "preach another Christ than the one we preach"

That in fact includes the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, because they all teach an untrue Christ, a counterfeit, a triune Christ. Incidentally PGA comes under that heading, though he would probably say I do.

God and Christ are not called father and son for nothing, they are in fact father and son. The son who came to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and become the Christ was in fact, as scripture tells us God's (only begotten Son" (John 1:14).

He is also, by the same token, the "beginning of the creation by God" Revelation 3:14) and therefore, the "first-born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17).

Those who wish to persuade you to believe their Satanic teaching will give you all sorts of convoluted reasons why you should not believe that, unfortunately for them the Apostles evidently did, because more than once throughout scripture they are found praising, not Christ, not the son, but "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 et al).

Even after his death and resurrection Christ told Mary that he has a God. (John 20:17).

Those who teach this fake Christ are, whether they realise it or not, doing the work of Satan by drawing people away from the True God, whose holy name has been removed from most of their translations, and was declared to Moses to be YHWH or JHVH depending on which transliteration you choose, and is known in English as Jehovah.

That is all clearly stated in scripture.

If you want an idea of what the bible really teaches, feel free to check out the link in my signature. No-one need ever know, lol.

So, nothing to do with the prophecy of the antichrist? Please, do try to stay on topic.

Considering I was describing the Anti-Christ and how to identify that group it has everything to do with the Anti-Christ and is completely on topic. The Antic-Christ is not one person, but a group of people who teach as I described.. That group can also be stretched to include all those who teach that Christ did not exist, though in my post I stayed with the tighter identification.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:43:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).

Which in fact it self-evidently is to those who understand it and recognise it's accuracy even in areas that no human could have been aware of.

That is what I meant to say. The Bible was not written as literature, although some like to interpret it according to their own personal desires. If the Bible is the word of god, which IS how it is presented, then the meanings should not change. Ever. Yet, I am confronted time and again by the changing definitions and interpretations which are as malleable as silly putty. It really should be an embarrassment for believers.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:43:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).

Which in fact it self-evidently is to those who understand it and recognise it's accuracy even in areas that no human could have been aware of.

That is what I meant to say. The Bible was not written as literature,

...what? I don't get what you mean by this. Of course it was. Sacred literature.

although some like to interpret it according to their own personal desires. If the Bible is the word of god, which IS how it is presented, then the meanings should not change. Ever. Yet, I am confronted time and again by the changing definitions and interpretations which are as malleable as silly putty. It really should be an embarrassment for believers.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:51:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:45:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:43:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).

Which in fact it self-evidently is to those who understand it and recognise it's accuracy even in areas that no human could have been aware of.

That is what I meant to say. The Bible was not written as literature,

...what? I don't get what you mean by this. Of course it was. Sacred literature.

Yes, forgive me. It was meant as literature, but not fictional literature which is the way some choose to read it.

although some like to interpret it according to their own personal desires. If the Bible is the word of god, which IS how it is presented, then the meanings should not change. Ever. Yet, I am confronted time and again by the changing definitions and interpretations which are as malleable as silly putty. It really should be an embarrassment for believers.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:43:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).

Which in fact it self-evidently is to those who understand it and recognise it's accuracy even in areas that no human could have been aware of.

That is what I meant to say. The Bible was not written as literature, although some like to interpret it according to their own personal desires. If the Bible is the word of god, which IS how it is presented, then the meanings should not change. Ever. Yet, I am confronted time and again by the changing definitions and interpretations which are as malleable as silly putty. It really should be an embarrassment for believers.

The meanings do not, people's false understandings of it do, according to their own ideas.

There is only one way to understand scripture, with God's help, as James 1:5-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:10 tell us.

It is also important to realise that as God's word it cannot contain contradictions so if you find one you are understanding something wrongly, or it has been wrongly translated.

Satan, as God's enemy, has done a good job of confusing things, but God has protected them sufficiently to make it possible for the honest hearted to find the truth, with his help.

Of course it takes considerable effort, but then doesn't anything worth having?

As you say, some prefer to interpret it their way, and Satan encourages that, but it will do them no good in the end, nor those who listen to them.

Of course, this is all in fulfilment of prophecy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 1:38:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:54:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:50:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

Scripturally the Antichrist includes any who, as Paul put it, "preach another Christ than the one we preach"

That in fact includes the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, because they all teach an untrue Christ, a counterfeit, a triune Christ. Incidentally PGA comes under that heading, though he would probably say I do.

God and Christ are not called father and son for nothing, they are in fact father and son. The son who came to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and become the Christ was in fact, as scripture tells us God's (only begotten Son" (John 1:14).

He is also, by the same token, the "beginning of the creation by God" Revelation 3:14) and therefore, the "first-born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15-17).

Those who wish to persuade you to believe their Satanic teaching will give you all sorts of convoluted reasons why you should not believe that, unfortunately for them the Apostles evidently did, because more than once throughout scripture they are found praising, not Christ, not the son, but "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 et al).

Even after his death and resurrection Christ told Mary that he has a God. (John 20:17).

Those who teach this fake Christ are, whether they realise it or not, doing the work of Satan by drawing people away from the True God, whose holy name has been removed from most of their translations, and was declared to Moses to be YHWH or JHVH depending on which transliteration you choose, and is known in English as Jehovah.

That is all clearly stated in scripture.

If you want an idea of what the bible really teaches, feel free to check out the link in my signature. No-one need ever know, lol.

So, nothing to do with the prophecy of the antichrist? Please, do try to stay on topic.


Considering I was describing the Anti-Christ and how to identify that group it has everything to do with the Anti-Christ and is completely on topic. The Antic-Christ is not one person, but a group of people who teach as I described.. That group can also be stretched to include all those who teach that Christ did not exist, though in my post I stayed with the tighter identification.

Ok, I am familiar with the "antichrist" label thrown as individuals, but I have never heard of nor considered it to be the same antichrist in Revelation. This is fascinating. Mind blown.

How do you explain the mortal wound, and the false prophet, and the sign of the beast, the beast from the sea, the beast from the land?!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 1:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:



Ok, I am familiar with the "antichrist" label thrown as individuals, but I have never heard of nor considered it to be the same antichrist in Revelation. This is fascinating. Mind blown.

How do you explain the mortal wound, and the false prophet, and the sign of the beast, the beast from the sea, the beast from the land?!

Anti-Christ is the same wherever it appears, somewhat unusually for scripture, because it literally means against Christ, or to be specific against the truth of Christ which is why it includes those ho claim to be Christian but teach false things about him.

If you notice there is a beast and they image of the beats, and it is the image that receives the death stroke and revives.

The Beast represents the major world powers down through the centuries some of which have been two horned , or dual powers. The reason it is a Beast is that it is against God's kingdom and is controlled or influenced by Satan.

The image of the beast is as it intimates a copy of the Beast and represents the League of Nations formed after WWI to keep the peace, and which represented the major governments of the earth.

It received a "death stroke" in teat it failed in it's role and so was disbanded when WWII broke out.

However it recovered under the Guise of the United Nations very much the same organisation with the same aims, but under a different name.

The false prophet is very much the same as the Anti-Christ, but includes all who teach against the truth of God, but more specifically those who do so inside Apostate Christianity. God holds them to be the most reprehensible since they have his word in their hands but refuse to handle it properly. Like the Pharisees of Christ's day they happily mislead their people and are completely false to the power of God.

As for the Beasts from the Sea and the Land, I'll just leave you with this thought for now.

Often in scripture, mankind is divided into two groups and called "Land" or "Sea". As can probably be seen the land does not change much, it is stable, settled, whereas the sea is restless, ever changing and moving. Think of this in political terms and you should get the idea of stable nations and unstable ones.

There is a little more to it than that but I think that is enough for you to absorb for the moment. You can always ask me to expand on it sometime.later.

Thank you for one of the most interesting questions I have been asked in some time.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:10:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:



Ok, I am familiar with the "antichrist" label thrown as individuals, but I have never heard of nor considered it to be the same antichrist in Revelation. This is fascinating. Mind blown.

How do you explain the mortal wound, and the false prophet, and the sign of the beast, the beast from the sea, the beast from the land?!

Anti-Christ is the same wherever it appears, somewhat unusually for scripture, because it literally means against Christ, or to be specific against the truth of Christ which is why it includes those ho claim to be Christian but teach false things about him.

If you notice there is a beast and they image of the beats, and it is the image that receives the death stroke and revives.

The Beast represents the major world powers down through the centuries some of which have been two horned , or dual powers. The reason it is a Beast is that it is against God's kingdom and is controlled or influenced by Satan.

The image of the beast is as it intimates a copy of the Beast and represents the League of Nations formed after WWI to keep the peace, and which represented the major governments of the earth.

It received a "death stroke" in teat it failed in it's role and so was disbanded when WWII broke out.

However it recovered under the Guise of the United Nations very much the same organisation with the same aims, but under a different name.

The false prophet is very much the same as the Anti-Christ, but includes all who teach against the truth of God, but more specifically those who do so inside Apostate Christianity. God holds them to be the most reprehensible since they have his word in their hands but refuse to handle it properly. Like the Pharisees of Christ's day they happily mislead their people and are completely false to the power of God.

As for the Beasts from the Sea and the Land, I'll just leave you with this thought for now.

Often in scripture, mankind is divided into two groups and called "Land" or "Sea". As can probably be seen the land does not change much, it is stable, settled, whereas the sea is restless, ever changing and moving. Think of this in political terms and you should get the idea of stable nations and unstable ones.

There is a little more to it than that but I think that is enough for you to absorb for the moment. You can always ask me to expand on it sometime.later.

Thank you for one of the most interesting questions I have been asked in some time.

Well, you're welcome for the question. Don't let it go to your head. ;-)

So, if you think the League of Nations was the antichrist spoken of in Revelation, then you like PGA and Anna believe the second coming has already occurred?

...and for the record, you should know I find all of this fascinating, but in no way do I accept any of it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:22:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:10:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:



Ok, I am familiar with the "antichrist" label thrown as individuals, but I have never heard of nor considered it to be the same antichrist in Revelation. This is fascinating. Mind blown.

How do you explain the mortal wound, and the false prophet, and the sign of the beast, the beast from the sea, the beast from the land?!

Anti-Christ is the same wherever it appears, somewhat unusually for scripture, because it literally means against Christ, or to be specific against the truth of Christ which is why it includes those ho claim to be Christian but teach false things about him.

If you notice there is a beast and they image of the beats, and it is the image that receives the death stroke and revives.

The Beast represents the major world powers down through the centuries some of which have been two horned , or dual powers. The reason it is a Beast is that it is against God's kingdom and is controlled or influenced by Satan.

The image of the beast is as it intimates a copy of the Beast and represents the League of Nations formed after WWI to keep the peace, and which represented the major governments of the earth.

It received a "death stroke" in teat it failed in it's role and so was disbanded when WWII broke out.

However it recovered under the Guise of the United Nations very much the same organisation with the same aims, but under a different name.

The false prophet is very much the same as the Anti-Christ, but includes all who teach against the truth of God, but more specifically those who do so inside Apostate Christianity. God holds them to be the most reprehensible since they have his word in their hands but refuse to handle it properly. Like the Pharisees of Christ's day they happily mislead their people and are completely false to the power of God.

As for the Beasts from the Sea and the Land, I'll just leave you with this thought for now.

Often in scripture, mankind is divided into two groups and called "Land" or "Sea". As can probably be seen the land does not change much, it is stable, settled, whereas the sea is restless, ever changing and moving. Think of this in political terms and you should get the idea of stable nations and unstable ones.

There is a little more to it than that but I think that is enough for you to absorb for the moment. You can always ask me to expand on it sometime.later.

Thank you for one of the most interesting questions I have been asked in some time.

Well, you're welcome for the question. Don't let it go to your head. ;-)

So, if you think the League of Nations was the antichrist spoken of in Revelation, then you like PGA and Anna believe the second coming has already occurred?

...and for the record, you should know I find all of this fascinating, but in no way do I accept any of it.

For the record it is entirely up to you what you accept, if anything.

The term "second coming" is deceptive.

There will be no physical return. The physical body of Jesus was sacrificed on his death and could never be restored, which as why, as Peter tells us, Jesus was resurrected in spirit not flesh.

The word so frequently mistranslated as "coming" actually carries the sense of an action completed and therefore is more accurately thought of as "presence"

Man people assume that to have been when he was allowed, by his father to take up his throne, after his "enemies" were "placed at his feet"

The enemies concerned are Satan and his Angels, and just prior to Christ taking up his throne Revelations tells us there was "war in heaven" which resulted in Satan being cast out of heaven and down to the vicinity of the earth. Thus he was no longer able to daily torment God and the faithful angels but could only vent his "great anger" on us humans down here.

Since the prophecy in Daniel tells us that Christ's rule was to begin in 1914, and the events from around that time and just before, including the massive and inexplicably sudden advancement of humans to a stage where we are rapidly destroying the earth (see Revelation 11:18), give good reason to accept the accuracy of that prophecy.

Satan wants to destroy humanity because he has lost out on his future and wants us to lose out on ours. However God has prevented hi for destroying us directly, so what better way than to influence us to destroy ourselves by giving us ideas we think are our own?

So whilst Anna, PGA, and I differ by about 1800 years, we do indeed agree that it ahs actually occurred.

Hover there is a possibility that his Parousia may apply not to his taking up his throne, or to his starting off the work he foretold for this time, but to his being sent at Armageddon to clear the earth of all of Satan's works and followers, intentional or through ignorance. The purpose of the preaching work is partly to teach those who want what God offers how to be in line for it, partly to prove Satan's accusations wrong, and partly to ensure that there is no rational excuse for ignorance left.; I am a small, insignificant part of that work.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There doesn"t seem to be anything definitive on that, not improbable though. I"ve heard everything from Nero to the Roman Catholic church as the antichrist. From so called experts and those who did spend much of their careers studying prophesy. The Christian view is usually whoever is against Christ is antichrist. But a converted rabbi once said that when it comes to bible prophesy, no one figures it out until after its been fulfilled.

I know that's no answer, but I don't think you will find a provable one.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:01:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:22:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:10:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 10/27/2014 1:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:04:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:



Ok, I am familiar with the "antichrist" label thrown as individuals, but I have never heard of nor considered it to be the same antichrist in Revelation. This is fascinating. Mind blown.

How do you explain the mortal wound, and the false prophet, and the sign of the beast, the beast from the sea, the beast from the land?!

Anti-Christ is the same wherever it appears, somewhat unusually for scripture, because it literally means against Christ, or to be specific against the truth of Christ which is why it includes those ho claim to be Christian but teach false things about him.

If you notice there is a beast and they image of the beats, and it is the image that receives the death stroke and revives.

The Beast represents the major world powers down through the centuries some of which have been two horned , or dual powers. The reason it is a Beast is that it is against God's kingdom and is controlled or influenced by Satan.

The image of the beast is as it intimates a copy of the Beast and represents the League of Nations formed after WWI to keep the peace, and which represented the major governments of the earth.

It received a "death stroke" in teat it failed in it's role and so was disbanded when WWII broke out.

However it recovered under the Guise of the United Nations very much the same organisation with the same aims, but under a different name.

The false prophet is very much the same as the Anti-Christ, but includes all who teach against the truth of God, but more specifically those who do so inside Apostate Christianity. God holds them to be the most reprehensible since they have his word in their hands but refuse to handle it properly. Like the Pharisees of Christ's day they happily mislead their people and are completely false to the power of God.

As for the Beasts from the Sea and the Land, I'll just leave you with this thought for now.

Often in scripture, mankind is divided into two groups and called "Land" or "Sea". As can probably be seen the land does not change much, it is stable, settled, whereas the sea is restless, ever changing and moving. Think of this in political terms and you should get the idea of stable nations and unstable ones.

There is a little more to it than that but I think that is enough for you to absorb for the moment. You can always ask me to expand on it sometime.later.

Thank you for one of the most interesting questions I have been asked in some time.

Well, you're welcome for the question. Don't let it go to your head. ;-)

So, if you think the League of Nations was the antichrist spoken of in Revelation, then you like PGA and Anna believe the second coming has already occurred?

...and for the record, you should know I find all of this fascinating, but in no way do I accept any of it.

For the record it is entirely up to you what you accept, if anything.

The term "second coming" is deceptive.

There will be no physical return. The physical body of Jesus was sacrificed on his death and could never be restored, which as why, as Peter tells us, Jesus was resurrected in spirit not flesh.

Either you are ignorant of what the bible says, or you think I am:

Acts 1:11
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

It seems pretty clear to me, Jesus is supposed to return with his physical body, just the way he left.

The word so frequently mistranslated as "coming" actually carries the sense of an action completed and therefore is more accurately thought of as "presence"

Man people assume that to have been when he was allowed, by his father to take up his throne, after his "enemies" were "placed at his feet"

The enemies concerned are Satan and his Angels, and just prior to Christ taking up his throne Revelations tells us there was "war in heaven" which resulted in Satan being cast out of heaven and down to the vicinity of the earth. Thus he was no longer able to daily torment God and the faithful angels but could only vent his "great anger" on us humans down here.

Since the prophecy in Daniel tells us that Christ's rule was to begin in 1914, and the events from around that time and just before, including the massive and inexplicably sudden advancement of humans to a stage where we are rapidly destroying the earth (see Revelation 11:18), give good reason to accept the accuracy of that prophecy.

Okay, is this a common belief for JW's, or is this your own spin?

Satan wants to destroy humanity because he has lost out on his future and wants us to lose out on ours. However God has prevented hi for destroying us directly, so what better way than to influence us to destroy ourselves by giving us ideas we think are our own?

So whilst Anna, PGA, and I differ by about 1800 years, we do indeed agree that it ahs actually occurred.

Well, I'm would disagree with your defintion of "actually". Apparently, you all think it didn't actually occur, but it has spiritually happened. In other words, we can not verify it happened in actuality.

Hover there is a possibility that his Parousia may apply not to his taking up his throne, or to his starting off the work he foretold for this time, but to his being sent at Armageddon to clear the earth of all of Satan's works and followers, intentional or through ignorance. The purpose of the preaching work is partly to teach those who want what God offers how to be in line for it, partly to prove Satan's accusations wrong, and partly to ensure that there is no rational excuse for ignorance left.; I am a small, insignificant part of that work.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:12:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There doesn"t seem to be anything definitive on that, not improbable though. I"ve heard everything from Nero to the Roman Catholic church as the antichrist. From so called experts and those who did spend much of their careers studying prophesy. The Christian view is usually whoever is against Christ is antichrist. But a converted rabbi once said that when it comes to bible prophesy, no one figures it out until after its been fulfilled.

Your Rabbi friend and I agree 100%.

I know that's no answer, but I don't think you will find a provable one.

Thanks for your thoughts.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:06:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:13:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:01:37 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:



Either you are ignorant of what the bible says, or you think I am:


I have a completely open mind about your bible knowledge , but few people know it very well, and even less understand what they know, because few people accept the help and guidance which God and Christ promised through holy spirit which is the only way you can possibly access the "deep things of God, as Paul made clear. However I do trust in God and Christ 100% especially in the knowledge that it is to their advantage to make sure that I teach truth. Therefore as good or poor as you may think my bible knowledge, and most importantly understanding, is, I know that thanks to God and Christ it is way above average.

That may sound like boasting, but as Paul says I can only boast in Jehovah, since I cannot deny what he has done with me and through me, for his own purposes. As Moses learned it would be very wrong to do so.

Acts 1:11
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Apart from the fact that you missed out the two previous verses you are perfectly correct, read them and ask how was he taken up from them?

Acts 1:9-11
ASV(i) 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.

Invisibly, in a cloud, and in a spirit body not one of flesh,

1 Peter 3:18
ASV(i) 18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit

When you think about that last part it helps you understand why even his closest associates did not recognise him by his appearance and only accepted that it was him when they saw the wounds, which apparently were not there when they first saw him and he simply produced in his body at will.

And whilst you read them remember that Jewish clothing at the time had the hands and feet constantly on display, and ask yourself why the disciples needed to ask to see such serious wounds in such clothing..

I would suggest that you read John 20, and Luke 24 to help understand that.

Also ask yourself how he could simply appear in the midst of a crowd to such effect that they thought they were seeing a ghost?

Whenever you read scripture the questions how? and why? should never be far from the front of your mind.


It seems pretty clear to me, Jesus is supposed to return with his physical body, just the way he left.

But as you will see from the scriptures above he did not leave with a physical body, nor did he leave visibly since he was obsacured from their view by a cloud..


The word so frequently mistranslated as "coming" actually carries the sense of an action completed and therefore is more accurately thought of as "presence"

Man people assume that to have been when he was allowed, by his father to take up his throne, after his "enemies" were "placed at his feet"

The enemies concerned are Satan and his Angels, and just prior to Christ taking up his throne Revelations tells us there was "war in heaven" which resulted in Satan being cast out of heaven and down to the vicinity of the earth. Thus he was no longer able to daily torment God and the faithful angels but could only vent his "great anger" on us humans down here.

Since the prophecy in Daniel tells us that Christ's rule was to begin in 1914, and the events from around that time and just before, including the massive and inexplicably sudden advancement of humans to a stage where we are rapidly destroying the earth (see Revelation 11:18), give good reason to accept the accuracy of that prophecy.

Okay, is this a common belief for JW's, or is this your own spin?

Neither, it is scripture pure and simple/ If you want to know how Daniel 4 works out to 1914, here it is, including the scriptural keys?

CALCULATING THE "SEVEN TIMES"

"Seven times" = 7 X 360 = 2,520 years

A Biblical "time," or year = 12 X 30 days = 360. (Rev. 11:2,"3; 12:6,"14)

In the fulfillment of the "seven times" each day equals one year. (Ezek. 4:6; Num. 14:34)

Early October, 607"B.C.E., to December 31,"607"B.C.E.= 1/4 year

January 1,"606"B.C.E., to December 31,"1"B.C.E. = 606 years

January 1,"1"C.E., to December 31,"1913 = 1,913 years

January 1,"1914, to early October, 1914 = 3/4 year
Total: 2,520 years

I have no idea who that calculation began with but I do know it was not the JWs, or Bible Students as they were then known. They had their own ideas, but accepted the evidence of that calculation and changed to fit it.

As Annanicole will be only too pleased to tell you they had a number of erroneous ideas until they learned different, lol.

However the evidence of history certainly appears to bear out that Satan was cast down to the earth's vicinity not long before.


Satan wants to destroy humanity because he has lost out on his future and wants us to lose out on ours. However God has prevented hi for destroying us directly, so what better way than to influence us to destroy ourselves by giving us ideas we think are our own?

So whilst Anna, PGA, and I differ by about 1800 years, we do indeed agree that it ahs actually occurred.

Well, I'm would disagree with your defintion of "actually". Apparently, you all think it didn't actually occur, but it has spiritually happened. In other words, we can not verify it happened in actuality.

We can only verify it by observing the signs Christ gave us to recognise it by.

After all why would he need to give us signs if he were coming down physically? And as a child I also wondered what sort of reception he would get, especially from the worlds Governments he has come to replace?

However it is fact, so physical or spiritual it is still actual

Actually another question which should never one far from the front of your mind is What if?

Even as a child I realised that a physical return was nonsensical and self defeating. At the least it would only inspire terror, and God does not want to be worshipped on that basis. Nor does he wish to work by mind control. He gave us free will and will not ever remove it, or he would have done so millennia ago,


However there is a possibility that his Parousia may apply not to his taking up his throne, or to his starting off the work he foretold for this time, (Matthew 24:14) but to his being sent at Armageddon to clear the earth of all of Satan's works and followers, intentional or through ignorance. The purpose of the preaching work is partly to teach those who want what God offers how to be in line for it, partly to prove Satan's accusations wrong, and partly to ensure that there is no rational excuse for ignorance left.; I am a small, insignificant part of that work.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:12:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There doesn"t seem to be anything definitive on that, not improbable though. I"ve heard everything from Nero to the Roman Catholic church as the antichrist. From so called experts and those who did spend much of their careers studying prophesy. The Christian view is usually whoever is against Christ is antichrist. But a converted rabbi once said that when it comes to bible prophesy, no one figures it out until after its been fulfilled.

I know that's no answer, but I don't think you will find a provable one.

Your Rabbi has a point however that is not absolute. Some prophecies c\an be recognised before fulfilment some during and even more after.

However we are given the whole of scripture to use to identify any who are part of the Anti-Christ.

Simply if they do not teach the truth, they are a part of the Anti-Christ. If they claim to be Christian but teach a Christ other than the true one, i. e. they teach him as part of a pagan triune arrangement, then they are false prophets and Anti-Christs.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:38:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

"The antiChrist", or THE antiChrist, is quite a bit broader than that:

"Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)

Thus the antiChrist is a certain class of people - not just one person. However, the belief system (or lack of belief system) was personified in one person at times.

The Roman persecutors of Christianity in the first century and beyond were, of course, antiChrist or antiChrists, and these were merely personified in the person of Nero Caesar. Nero was sort-of a synecdoche - a summer-upper - of "the antiChrist."

I am assuming that PGA is drawing on the Book of Revelation, and indeed Nero Caesar would be the personification, the representative, the standard-bearer of "antiChrist." This has reference most likely to Nero's persecution of Christians after blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome in, I believe, AD 64.

It is interesting that Nero in Latin (Neron) equates to 666: "N = 50, E = 6, R = 500, O = 60, N = 50). In some cases the last "n" was dropped, leaving just "Nero" which would add up to only 616. This may explain why a few Biblical manuscripts give the "mark of the beast" as .... 616, instead of 666.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:40:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:21:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:12:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There doesn"t seem to be anything definitive on that, not improbable though. I"ve heard everything from Nero to the Roman Catholic church as the antichrist. From so called experts and those who did spend much of their careers studying prophesy. The Christian view is usually whoever is against Christ is antichrist. But a converted rabbi once said that when it comes to bible prophesy, no one figures it out until after its been fulfilled.

Your Rabbi friend and I agree 100%.

On certain prophesies, though not all, that would be true.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Acts 1:11
They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Apart from the fact that you missed out the two previous verses you are perfectly correct, read them and ask how was he taken up from them?

Acts 1:9-11
ASV(i) 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.

Invisibly, in a cloud, and in a spirit body not one of flesh,

If he was invisible, then why were they watching him as he went? Obviously, they could see him go! Plus, if he were completely a spiritual being, why did he eat and drink after his resurrection?

1 Peter 3:18
ASV(i) 18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit

When you think about that last part it helps you understand why even his closest associates did not recognise him by his appearance and only accepted that it was him when they saw the wounds, which apparently were not there when they first saw him and he simply produced in his body at will.

And whilst you read them remember that Jewish clothing at the time had the hands and feet constantly on display, and ask yourself why the disciples needed to ask to see such serious wounds in such clothing..

I would suggest that you read John 20, and Luke 24 to help understand that.

Also ask yourself how he could simply appear in the midst of a crowd to such effect that they thought they were seeing a ghost?

Why would Jesus not look like himself? My skeptical mind goes crazy on that. If Jesus wasn't recognized by those who knew him best, then how surprising is it for him to be able to get into the middle of a crowd unnoticed? Speculation abounds I suppose.

Whenever you read scripture the questions how? and why? should never be far from the front of your mind.


It seems pretty clear to me, Jesus is supposed to return with his physical body, just the way he left.

But as you will see from the scriptures above he did not leave with a physical body, nor did he leave visibly since he was obsacured from their view by a cloud..

We disagree.


Since the prophecy in Daniel tells us that Christ's rule was to begin in 1914, and the events from around that time and just before, including the massive and inexplicably sudden advancement of humans to a stage where we are rapidly destroying the earth (see Revelation 11:18), give good reason to accept the accuracy of that prophecy.

Okay, is this a common belief for JW's, or is this your own spin?

Ok, so this is not JW?

Neither, it is scripture pure and simple/ If you want to know how Daniel 4 works out to 1914, here it is, including the scriptural keys?

CALCULATING THE "SEVEN TIMES"

"Seven times" = 7 X 360 = 2,520 years

A Biblical "time," or year = 12 X 30 days = 360. (Rev. 11:2,"3; 12:6,"14)

In the fulfillment of the "seven times" each day equals one year. (Ezek. 4:6; Num. 14:34)

Early October, 607"B.C.E., to December 31,"607"B.C.E.= 1/4 year

January 1,"606"B.C.E., to December 31,"1"B.C.E. = 606 years

January 1,"1"C.E., to December 31,"1913 = 1,913 years

January 1,"1914, to early October, 1914 = 3/4 year
Total: 2,520 years

I have no idea who that calculation began with but I do know it was not the JWs, or Bible Students as they were then known. They had their own ideas, but accepted the evidence of that calculation and changed to fit it.

Yea, none of that makes any sense to me.

As Annanicole will be only too pleased to tell you they had a number of erroneous ideas until they learned different, lol.

However the evidence of history certainly appears to bear out that Satan was cast down to the earth's vicinity not long before.

Cast down from Heaven? Cast into the lake of fire? Clarify, please.

Well, I'm would disagree with your defintion of "actually". Apparently, you all think it didn't actually occur, but it has spiritually happened. In other words, we can not verify it happened in actuality.

We can only verify it by observing the signs Christ gave us to recognise it by.

After all why would he need to give us signs if he were coming down physically? And as a child I also wondered what sort of reception he would get, especially from the worlds Governments he has come to replace?

However it is fact, so physical or spiritual it is still actual

It is only a fact if you can establish it actually happened. So, I will agree to the possibility of it being an actuality, but not to it being an actuality in fact.

Actually another question which should never one far from the front of your mind is What if?

Even as a child I realised that a physical return was nonsensical and self defeating. At the least it would only inspire terror, and God does not want to be worshipped on that basis. Nor does he wish to work by mind control. He gave us free will and will not ever remove it, or he would have done so millennia ago,

Well, I realized if the prophecies can not be verified as fulfilled, then what good are they. The Bible is extremely good at predicting the past, not so much on the future. It is a moving target of interpretation that is only realized after the fact.


However there is a possibility that his Parousia may apply not to his taking up his throne, or to his starting off the work he foretold for this time, (Matthew 24:14) but to his being sent at Armageddon to clear the earth of all of Satan's works and followers, intentional or through ignorance. The purpose of the preaching work is partly to teach those who want what God offers how to be in line for it, partly to prove Satan's accusations wrong, and partly to ensure that there is no rational excuse for ignorance left.; I am a small, insignificant part of that work.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:38:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

"The antiChrist", or THE antiChrist, is quite a bit broader than that:

"Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)

Thus the antiChrist is a certain class of people - not just one person. However, the belief system (or lack of belief system) was personified in one person at times.

The Roman persecutors of Christianity in the first century and beyond were, of course, antiChrist or antiChrists, and these were merely personified in the person of Nero Caesar. Nero was sort-of a synecdoche - a summer-upper - of "the antiChrist."

I am assuming that PGA is drawing on the Book of Revelation, and indeed Nero Caesar would be the personification, the representative, the standard-bearer of "antiChrist." This has reference most likely to Nero's persecution of Christians after blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome in, I believe, AD 64.

It is interesting that Nero in Latin (Neron) equates to 666: "N = 50, E = 6, R = 500, O = 60, N = 50). In some cases the last "n" was dropped, leaving just "Nero" which would add up to only 616. This may explain why a few Biblical manuscripts give the "mark of the beast" as .... 616, instead of 666.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The only issue I have with the 666 and Nero is that you must use Latin to make it work. Why would you change languages from what the prophecy was written in?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:12:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

Obviously you are being deceived by that vague spirit of deception.
The antichrist or the man of sin is nothing more than the "carnal man" within or the part of mankind which causes mankind to delude himself.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:35:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:49:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


Invisibly, in a cloud, and in a spirit body not one of flesh,

If he was invisible, then why were they watching him as he went? Obviously, they could see him go! Plus, if he were completely a spiritual being, why did he eat and drink after his resurrection?

Why should he not do so? To have refused to eat with them would, in that culture, have been an insult. Hospitality was as much in the acceptance as in the offering.

They were apparently watching the cloud he was taken up in, but the scripture says they couldn't see him so that is all it could be.

In a sense watching the cloud that took him away from them is a bit like watching the train carriage in which someone you know and love is going away' or watching the plane they are in taking off. Or their car travelling down the road away from you long past when you can see them in it. Have you never done any of them? I know I have.



Why would Jesus not look like himself? My skeptical mind goes crazy on that. If Jesus wasn't recognized by those who knew him best, then how surprising is it for him to be able to get into the middle of a crowd unnoticed? Speculation abounds I suppose.

Then why when he did appear did they think they were seeing a ghost?

You are right to speculate, as long as you realise that is what you are doing and don;t kid yourself about it.

Because he wished to make it obvious that he was not resurrected in his original body, though you are right to suggest that he could have. Had he come back looking exactly as he did before, wounds and all, and everyone had recognised him immediately how would they have believed, as Peter said, that he had not been resurrected in the flesh?


Whenever you read scripture the questions how? and why? should never be far from the front of your mind.

But as you will see from the scriptures above he did not leave with a physical body, nor did he leave visibly since he was obscured from their view by a cloud..

We disagree.


Well it is what scripture says. It plainly states that he was taken from their sight, and it plainly states that he was resurrected in spirit not flesh. so it is not me you are disagreeing with, but that is your choice.



Okay, is this a common belief for JW's, or is this your own spin?

Ok, so this is not JW?

Not originating with them, no.



I have no idea who that calculation began with but I do know it was not the JWs, or Bible Students as they were then known. They had their own ideas, but accepted the evidence of that calculation and changed to fit it.

Yea, none of that makes any sense to me.

It is simple maths, addition and subtraction, also allowing for the fact that there was no year zero..


As Annanicole will be only too pleased to tell you they had a number of erroneous ideas until they learned different, lol.

However the evidence of history certainly appears to bear out that Satan was cast down to the earth's vicinity not long before.

Cast down from Heaven? Cast into the lake of fire? Clarify, please.

He was cast down from heaven to the vicinity of the earth.

Revelation 12:9-12
ASV(i) 9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. 10 And I heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.

That is in the time period before he is imprisoned. He is prevented from entering heaven whilst Jesus sets up his kingdom, installs those who are to rule with him who have already died, and gathers some from those on the earth to give them the chance to serve and prove themselves worthy also., and then to gather a basic core either to survive Armageddon on the earth or to be resurrected early on it.

Satan's activity towards the earth is still required to allow them the chance to prove faithful under trials that there is no way God himself would bring on them.

At Armageddon Satan is "abyssed" imprisoned for a while and is let lose at a final test to test all who have been resurrected and give them the chance to prove that they are prepared to remain faithful to God through trials which, again, God could not, and would not, put them through. It is also Satan's final chance to prove his accusations in the case of as many humans as possible.

After that final test Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire, this is, as Revelation 20 tells us, the "second death" one which is permanent with no resurrection available. Also thrown into this symbol of complete destruction are death and the Grave, Hades or Hell depending on the translation you use, but all of which mean the same thing.



However it is fact, so physical or spiritual it is still actual

It is only a fact if you can establish it actually happened. So, I will agree to the possibility of it being an actuality, but not to it being an actuality in fact.

As far as I am concerned there is more than enough evidence to prove that it has actually happened, circumstantial or not. I can think of no other reasonable explanation.

However reality is reality whether or not we recognise it as such.


Well, I realized if the prophecies can not be verified as fulfilled, then what good are they. The Bible is extremely good at predicting the past, not so much on the future. It is a moving target of interpretation that is only realized after the fact.

Whether or not the prophecies are recognisable before the fact depends on what their purpose is.

Some prophecies are warnings of what is to come. Some are signs for us to watch out for and when they happen we can say "Oh so that is what was meant".

Some are simply there as advanced confirmation of the source of what is happening so that when you see something which has fit the prophecy you can say "Well he wasn't kidding about that" or similar.

All the prophecies about Armageddon are warnings in order to get people to ask what they need to do or be to avoid them or survive them, Like Noah's prophecy about the flood.

Of course they also serve to sort out those who care enough about truth to make the effort to search out the real meanings
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:12:42 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 9:43:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 2:12:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

There are only two places in the bible where the "son of perdition" is mentioned.

* John 17:12 <<< That scripture is in context of Jesus praying and he is talking about those the father gave him while he was in the world and only one was lost. Which of Jesus disciples was lost? The way I see it, it is referring to Judas Iscariot or to the spirit ( attitude) of betrayal and deception.

*2 Thess 2:3 <<< That scripture is in the context of talking about the day of Christ being "at hand". Anyone who understand the meaning of "at hand" would understand it is about having something present and currently available. It is much like having tomorrow "at hand". Then it goes on to say it will not come without the man of sin or son of perdition being revealed. It is not talking about a physical man but about an attitude of deception and betrayal.

Look at the scriptures which mention antichrist. There are only 4 of them in the entire NT.
* 1 John 2:18 suggests the antichrist was present with them at the time. In other words it was already "at hand." It also implies there were many of them not just one. It refers to antichrists, plural.

* 1 John 2:22 suggests that anyone who denies Jesus is Christ is antichrist and is also a liar.

* 1 John 4:3 suggests that the attitude or the spirit which was against Christ or antichrist was already in the world at the time that sentence was originally written.

* 2 John 1:7 implies that deception was in the world at the time and there were many deceivers. Those deceivers were antichrist.

The way I see it, antichrist in context is referring to a spirit of deception not to any particular individual. Deception has always been in the world and that spirit or attitude keeps being passed down from one generation to the next and called truth by the deceivers who even deceive themselves with their false doctrines.

The deceived chase their own fantasies and try to apply the label "antichrist" to a single individual when it is referring to the attitude of deception itself which manifests itself in many ways through many people in the world. It always has and always will. Many of those deceivers are religious leaders. They are false prophets.

Tomorrow is at hand and tomorrow does not come without deception also coming with it. People need to be made more aware of the deceptions in this world because they reproduce themselves by being passed down from one generation to the next.

I know you prefer a vague interpretation, and I find that disingenuous. It is quite clear the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature.

Plus, you have completely overlooked Revelation where the prophecy related to the antichrist comes to a head.

Obviously you are being deceived by that vague spirit of deception.
The antichrist or the man of sin is nothing more than the "carnal man" within or the part of mankind which causes mankind to delude himself.

I was hoping to get what Christians thought about it, since that would be much more applicable to my debate. Thanks for your thoughts, though.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:57:14 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:38:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/27/2014 12:54:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I am currently in a debate with PGA, and the antichrist came up as an argument point. He suggested the emperor Nero in first century Rome was the antichrist. What are your thoughts on defining the antichrist?

"The antiChrist", or THE antiChrist, is quite a bit broader than that:

"Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)

Thus the antiChrist is a certain class of people - not just one person. However, the belief system (or lack of belief system) was personified in one person at times.

The Roman persecutors of Christianity in the first century and beyond were, of course, antiChrist or antiChrists, and these were merely personified in the person of Nero Caesar. Nero was sort-of a synecdoche - a summer-upper - of "the antiChrist."

I am assuming that PGA is drawing on the Book of Revelation, and indeed Nero Caesar would be the personification, the representative, the standard-bearer of "antiChrist." This has reference most likely to Nero's persecution of Christians after blaming them for the Great Fire of Rome in, I believe, AD 64.

It is interesting that Nero in Latin (Neron) equates to 666: "N = 50, E = 6, R = 500, O = 60, N = 50). In some cases the last "n" was dropped, leaving just "Nero" which would add up to only 616. This may explain why a few Biblical manuscripts give the "mark of the beast" as .... 616, instead of 666.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The only issue I have with the 666 and Nero is that you must use Latin to make it work. Why would you change languages from what the prophecy was written in?

Just as 7 is the number of earthly perfection so 6 is the number of error or sin, so 666 is simply repetition for emphasis. Incidentally 12 is the number heavenly completeness, hence 12 tribes of Israel;, 12 Apostles (slightly messed up by the 11 deciding to move ahead of Christ and appoint Matthias as the 12th making Paul the 13th when Jesus chose him. I find it interesting that we hear little or nothing of Matthias after his appointment).
bulproof
Posts: 25,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:43:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:57:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I don't know whether or not you intended it, but you told the truth, probably inadvertently when you said "the authors never intended the Bible to be nothing more than literature". By using a double negative you have told the truth in saying that they did indeed intend it to be seen as far more than literature, and in fact, as Paul stated as the word of God, and all that any man of God needs for his work. (1 Timothy 3:16,17).
Show us where paul stated the bible to be the word of god.
bulproof
Posts: 25,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:06:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Acts 1:9-11
ASV(i) 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.

Nowhere in this passage does it say anything remotely like this.
Invisibly, in a cloud, and in a spirit body not one of flesh,
Surely god can get you to lie better than this.