The Antichrist's identity?

[Chris]

Barack Obama in Hebrew means "The lighting that came down from heaven".

Watch Prince Charles.
and
Bill Gates.

[JimFoxvog]

Barack Obama in Hebrew means "The lighting that came down from heaven".
...

Where do you get that?

What does the name “Barack Hussein Obama” mean?
By Lawlinguists In Facts
Barack Hussein Obama II, better known as Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States. Today we will talk about him because the meaning of his name has caused much commotion during his years in the White House.

We have researched a little bit about what this name really means and this is what we found.

Barack Obama is named after his father, who was a Kenyan economist (called under the same name). He’s first real given name is “Barak”, also spelled Baraq (Not to be confused with Barack which is is a building or group of buildings that lodge soldiers), from the root B-R-Q, is a Hebrew name meaning “lightning” or “to shine”.

The Hebrew name ברק Bārāq is biblical, given after Barak, a military commander in the Book of Judges.

“Obama” is an ancient Kenyan surname. The name is found frequently among the Luo, the third largest ethnic group in Kenya. It is believed that the name derived from the root word Obam, which means “to lean or bend.”

https://www.lawlinguists.com/name-barac ... ama-means/

[Chris]

Barack Obama in Hebrew means "The lighting that came down from heaven".
...

Where do you get that?

What does the name “Barack Hussein Obama” mean?
By Lawlinguists In Facts
Barack Hussein Obama II, better known as Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States. Today we will talk about him because the meaning of his name has caused much commotion during his years in the White House.

We have researched a little bit about what this name really means and this is what we found.

Barack Obama is named after his father, who was a Kenyan economist (called under the same name). He’s first real given name is “Barak”, also spelled Baraq (Not to be confused with Barack which is is a building or group of buildings that lodge soldiers), from the root B-R-Q, is a Hebrew name meaning “lightning” or “to shine”.

The Hebrew name ברק Bārāq is biblical, given after Barak, a military commander in the Book of Judges.

“Obama” is an ancient Kenyan surname. The name is found frequently among the Luo, the third largest ethnic group in Kenya. It is believed that the name derived from the root word Obam, which means “to lean or bend.”

https://www.lawlinguists.com/name-barac ... ama-means/

Translate it to the spoken language of Jesus.
https://theydwellbeneaththetemples.com/ ... e-aramaic/

[Outsider]

Who is the Antichrist? He who says that Jesus is not the Christ.

Revelation is highly symbolic. The “man of lawlessness” is likely not an actual person, but rather represents the drive to lawlessness present in each of us.

I agree, but the “man of lawlessness” is Paul's term in Thessalonians. Antichrist is John's term. Revelation speaks of a "beast". Many people think they are all the same.

Revelation is a companion book to Daniel. A lot of theologians agree on this. I agree with them. However, I believe the "beasts" of revelations are empires, as they were in Daniel. This doesn't seem to be as popular, as most people seem to cling to the personification of some shadowy personage who will rise up and rule the world.

As to the "man of lawlessness", what temple is he to sit in? The temple in Jerusalem is destroyed (not one stone standing- I belive the Jews are wailing at the wall of the Roman fortress which was adjacent to the temple). So where is the temple where this lawless man sits?

1 Corinthians 6:19

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

Psalm 14:1

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”

I think the harlot on riding the beast with seven heads and ten horns is the church which has "fallen away" from the time of the "Constantinian shift" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift "The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.") when the church began to "fornicate" with the kings of the world and engage in bloodshed and all the other vices of the worldly kingdoms. I do not believe that this is only the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, as the Protestants have engaged in as much mayhem as their mother-churches have.

Constantine marks the shift from old, pagan Rome (the Red Dragon) to the first beast (who received rulership from the dragon). Henry VIII marks the rise of the second beast- in whom's belly, we find ourselves at the moment.

[JohnHurt]

I think the harlot on riding the beast with seven heads and ten horns is the church which has "fallen away" from the time of the "Constantinian shift" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift "The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.") when the church began to "fornicate" with the kings of the world and engage in bloodshed and all the other vices of the worldly kingdoms. I do not believe that this is only the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, as the Protestants have engaged in as much mayhem as their mother-churches have.

Constantine marks the shift from old, pagan Rome (the Red Dragon) to the first beast (who received rulership from the dragon). Henry VIII marks the rise of the second beast- in whom's belly, we find ourselves at the moment.

I have to agree, the Anti-Christ is NOT a person.

Rather, it is every church that has put themselves "In Place of Christ", which is the meaning of "Anti-Christ". I have not found one church that teaches that the doctrines of Christ are superior to the doctrines of men.

Here is what Christ said about His superiority over the other Apostles, and I have to quote from the Douay Rheims to accurately render the word "Apostle":

John 13:16 Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.

Christ is greater than James, or the Apostles John, Peter, or Paul. Christ is greater than the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, as the doctrines of Christ are greater than anything these men said. Christ is greater than the Church of Constantine, or all of the "spin-off" churches who ridicule the Catholic Church as "the woman of Babylon", yet assume the place of her daughters.

Christ is greater than Martin Luther, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Aimee Simple McPherson, Ellen White, or any other huckster that tried to make a buck off His Holy Name.

So what did Christ tell his followers to do? What is our "mission" as the true followers of Christ? After His Resurrection, Christ said we should be going into the world and...:

Matthew 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

We should only be teaching His doctrines, and all of His doctrines. NOT THE DOCTRINES OF MEN!

Christ did not tell us to teach the doctrines of Luther, Calvin, Alexander Campbell, or all of the rest of these men. Just the doctrines of Christ, and His words only.

In Matthew 15, Christ quoted Isaiah to make this point:

Matthew 15:(8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

(9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Teaching the doctrines of men is teaching the Anti Christ, or "In Place of Christ". And, according to Christ, their religion is vain, no matter how much they honor him with what they say.

As Christ said:

Matthew 24: (5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Yes, many shall come saying "Jesus is the Christ", and shall deceive many, because these men worship Christ but do not follow the doctrines of Christ.

Here is an example of what Christ taught about salvation that not one church teaches today:

Matthew 19:(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

(18) He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

(19) Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rather, every church follows Paul's method of salvation:

Ephesians 2:(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Christ said we are saved by obedience and keeping the 10 Commandments. Paul said we are saved by faith, not obedience. These are two different doctrines of salvation.

And this difference is the mark of the AntiChrist church - as they all teach that Paul's doctrine has replaced the clear instruction of Christ concerning salvation.

And they do this through their man-made doctrine of "Dispensationalism", which states that everything Christ taught before He died on the Cross is no longer relevant to His followers today. Wow!

That is not what Christ said.

Christ said "after" He died on the Cross:

Matthew 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

He said "All Things", not just whatever we think we might want to follow that Christ said.

The 1st Century Church held only to the Gospel of Matthew. It was Constantine that solidified the New Testament Canon and put the writings of Paul, James, John, Luke/Acts on an equal, or now a superior footing to Matthew and the Gospels.

The AntiChrist is not just the churches that teach the doctrines of men, it is also the New Testament Canon. These other books have been written by men, and are inferior to Christ and His Doctrines.

If everyone followed just the Gospel of Matthew, and ignored the doctrines of men, we would all be in the same church now.

And this would fulfill the prayer of Christ:

John 17:(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Here are some other doctrines that the churches will not teach.

Christ said there should be no church hierarchy: Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24
Christ said there should be no church titles: Matthew 23:8-10.
Christ said the Law would never be destroyed: Matthew 5:17-20.

No AntiChrist church today will teach these, and many other doctrines of Christ, because they conflict with their doctrines.

The AntiChrist church will teach "the wise man built it house upon a rock", or "the Good Samaritan", or "Prodigal Son", but they will not teach any doctrine of Christ that conflicts with their own doctrines. That is how they have put themselves in place of Christ.

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but strong medicine can provoke a strong reaction.

I hope this helps someone to study the doctrines of Christ.

John

[ken_sylvania]

I think the harlot on riding the beast with seven heads and ten horns is the church which has "fallen away" from the time of the "Constantinian shift" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift "The term was popularized by the Mennonite theologian John H. Yoder.") when the church began to "fornicate" with the kings of the world and engage in bloodshed and all the other vices of the worldly kingdoms. I do not believe that this is only the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, as the Protestants have engaged in as much mayhem as their mother-churches have.

Constantine marks the shift from old, pagan Rome (the Red Dragon) to the first beast (who received rulership from the dragon). Henry VIII marks the rise of the second beast- in whom's belly, we find ourselves at the moment.

I have to agree, the Anti-Christ is NOT a person.

Rather, it is every church that has put themselves "In Place of Christ", which is the meaning of "Anti-Christ". I have not found one church that teaches that the doctrines of Christ are superior to the doctrines of men.

Here is what Christ said about His superiority over the other Apostles, and I have to quote from the Douay Rheims to accurately render the word "Apostle":

John 13:16 Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.

Christ is greater than James, or the Apostles John, Peter, or Paul. Christ is greater than the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, as the doctrines of Christ are greater than anything these men said. Christ is greater than the Church of Constantine, or all of the "spin-off" churches who ridicule the Catholic Church as "the woman of Babylon", yet assume the place of her daughters.

Christ is greater than Martin Luther, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Aimee Simple McPherson, Ellen White, or any other huckster that tried to make a buck off His Holy Name.

So what did Christ tell his followers to do? What is our "mission" as the true followers of Christ? After His Resurrection, Christ said we should be going into the world and...:

Matthew 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

We should only be teaching His doctrines, and all of His doctrines. NOT THE DOCTRINES OF MEN!

Christ did not tell us to teach the doctrines of Luther, Calvin, Alexander Campbell, or all of the rest of these men. Just the doctrines of Christ, and His words only.

In Matthew 15, Christ quoted Isaiah to make this point:

Matthew 15:(8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

(9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Teaching the doctrines of men is teaching the Anti Christ, or "In Place of Christ". And, according to Christ, their religion is vain, no matter how much they honor him with what they say.

As Christ said:

Matthew 24: (5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Yes, many shall come saying "Jesus is the Christ", and shall deceive many, because these men worship Christ but do not follow the doctrines of Christ.

Here is an example of what Christ taught about salvation that not one church teaches today:

Matthew 19:(16) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

(17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

(18) He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

(19) Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rather, every church follows Paul's method of salvation:

Ephesians 2:(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Christ said we are saved by obedience and keeping the 10 Commandments. Paul said we are saved by faith, not obedience. These are two different doctrines of salvation.

And this difference is the mark of the AntiChrist church - as they all teach that Paul's doctrine has replaced the clear instruction of Christ concerning salvation.

And they do this through their man-made doctrine of "Dispensationalism", which states that everything Christ taught before He died on the Cross is no longer relevant to His followers today. Wow!

That is not what Christ said.

Christ said "after" He died on the Cross:

Matthew 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

He said "All Things", not just whatever we think we might want to follow that Christ said.

The 1st Century Church held only to the Gospel of Matthew. It was Constantine that solidified the New Testament Canon and put the writings of Paul, James, John, Luke/Acts on an equal, or now a superior footing to Matthew and the Gospels.

The AntiChrist is not just the churches that teach the doctrines of men, it is also the New Testament Canon. These other books have been written by men, and are inferior to Christ and His Doctrines.

If everyone followed just the Gospel of Matthew, and ignored the doctrines of men, we would all be in the same church now.

And this would fulfill the prayer of Christ:

John 17:(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Here are some other doctrines that the churches will not teach.

Christ said there should be no church hierarchy: Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24
Christ said there should be no church titles: Matthew 23:8-10.
Christ said the Law would never be destroyed: Matthew 5:17-20.

No AntiChrist church today will teach these, and many other doctrines of Christ, because they conflict with their doctrines.

The AntiChrist church will teach "the wise man built it house upon a rock", or "the Good Samaritan", or "Prodigal Son", but they will not teach any doctrine of Christ that conflicts with their own doctrines. That is how they have put themselves in place of Christ.

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but strong medicine can provoke a strong reaction.

I hope this helps someone to study the doctrines of Christ.

John

My feelings are certainly not hurt, but I am a bit puzzled. Do you think it is wise for me to read the doctrines or the words of JohnHurt as presented in this forum?

[ohio jones]

If everyone followed just the Gospel of Matthew, and ignored the doctrines of men, we would all be in the same church now.

And this would fulfill the prayer of Christ:

John 17:(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

If Matthew alone is sufficient, why quote John?

[gcdonner]

If everyone followed just the Gospel of Matthew, and ignored the doctrines of men, we would all be in the same church now.

And this would fulfill the prayer of Christ:

John 17:(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

(22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

If Matthew alone is sufficient, why quote John?

LOL

[gcdonner]

Unfortunately, IMHO, y'all have missed the point of the scripture's identification of anti-christ, mostly because you are lifting it all out of it's first century context.
Gnosticism was rampant in the first century, both in Christian as well as Jewish and pagan theology.
John was warning against the Christian Gnosticism that was then prevalent and striving against the church and continued to do so for several centuries, and continues in one form or another to this day. Their view of "the Christ" was that he/it/she came in spirit form only, which fit into their dualistic world views.
We may and should draw out the principles from John's teachings, but not without understanding it's contexts and applying it the way he and the Holy Spirit intended it to be used.
Too many christians enjoy playing the "pin the horns on the anti-christ" game. It has been done to the hurt of our testimony (pun may be intended John).
The anti-christ is NOT the same as the man of sin/lawlessness that Paul refers to in his letter to the Thessalonians, nor is it the same entity identified by the revelator as the "beast". Each one is viably different in their descriptions, applications and ramifications. They may seem to be similar, but that does not mean they are the same.

One thing we fail to learn from history is that we forget it and are doomed to repeat it, and that we always are so sure of our place in the scheme of the ages that we must be the primary focus, because "we" are living "now".
Y'all need to study to ascertain who the "you, ye, they. them are in contrast to us, we, and I" of scripture. The message is for us, but not written directly to us. Our arrogance leads us astray all too often when reading the bible.
There are time limits and place limits which we ignore to our detriment.

Think about it!

[Outsider]

Unfortunately, IMHO, y'all have missed the point of the scripture's identification of anti-christ, mostly because you are lifting it all out of it's first century context.
Gnosticism was rampant in the first century, both in Christian as well as Jewish and pagan theology.
John was warning against the Christian Gnosticism that was then prevalent and striving against the church and continued to do so for several centuries, and continues in one form or another to this day. Their view of "the Christ" was that he/it/she came in spirit form only, which fit into their dualistic world views.
We may and should draw out the principles from John's teachings, but not without understanding it's contexts and applying it the way he and the Holy Spirit intended it to be used.
Too many christians enjoy playing the "pin the horns on the anti-christ" game. It has been done to the hurt of our testimony (pun may be intended John).
The anti-christ is NOT the same as the man of sin/lawlessness that Paul refers to in his letter to the Thessalonians, nor is it the same entity identified by the revelator as the "beast". Each one is viably different in their descriptions, applications and ramifications. They may seem to be similar, but that does not mean they are the same.

One thing we fail to learn from history is that we forget it and are doomed to repeat it, and that we always are so sure of our place in the scheme of the ages that we must be the primary focus, because "we" are living "now".
Y'all need to study to ascertain who the "you, ye, they. them are in contrast to us, we, and I" of scripture. The message is for us, but not written directly to us. Our arrogance leads us astray all too often when reading the bible.
There are time limits and place limits which we ignore to our detriment.

Think about it!

You are a very learned man, as are many here- more learned than I am, I believe (also as many here ). And you are a fearsome debater. But I just can't buy your preterism! There are too many things I can't see as happening in the first century for me to believe that it was all fulfilled in that span of time.

Why did John bother to couch it in an apocalyptic series of visions and allusions if it was just current events? And if all of it happened in the first century, why did John promise

Revelations 22

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, [j]God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God[k] shall take away his part from the [l]Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

As this was written at the very end of the first century, less than a decade before the second, how would someone who added to his words be the recipient of the plagues he describes in the book?