The Antichrist's identity?

[MaxPC]

From my perspective: if I talk with God daily and study how to be like Christ. I will become so familiar with Him that I will recognize an imposter. I trust God to give me the insight to know the fake from the divine.

[silentreader]

From my perspective: if I talk with God daily and study how to be like Christ. I will become so familiar with Him that I will recognize an imposter. I trust God to give me the insight to know the fake from the divine.

So obvious and yet so ignored.
We need to study the Truth and the Life in order to be aware of what is deception and death.

[gcdonner]

I'm thinking that Scripture prophecies seem to imply this

Where in scripture is this implied? I see a lot of speculation going on with very little biblical foundation.
"Any text taken out of context becomes a pretext". There is a lot of that going on in this discussion.

Certainly rightly dividing the Word of Truth is important- and their are certainly divisions among us at doing this correctly, each believer tries to make their case with their own forumulas- I tend to lean towards what the early Church fathers of the faith shared & why- I realize the 'falling away of the faith' happens more 'at the end' than in the very beginning, because heresy was easier to address in the beginning before the Reformation where there was much more acceptance of various interpretations-

In answer to your question though- this is one of the passages from 2 Thessalonians 2, but the early Church fathers spoke a lot about this, too much to share now-

The Man of Sin

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You just made my point. There is no mention of any "anti-christ" in this passage, is there? Check with the one author who uses the term anti-christ to see if his definition fits with this one. It seems that folks are too willing to impose imagination onto scripture to make it fit their agenda. Can you give the biblical definition of an anti-christ?
Think about that for a moment.

[Valerie]

Where in scripture is this implied? I see a lot of speculation going on with very little biblical foundation.
"Any text taken out of context becomes a pretext". There is a lot of that going on in this discussion.

Certainly rightly dividing the Word of Truth is important- and their are certainly divisions among us at doing this correctly, each believer tries to make their case with their own forumulas- I tend to lean towards what the early Church fathers of the faith shared & why- I realize the 'falling away of the faith' happens more 'at the end' than in the very beginning, because heresy was easier to address in the beginning before the Reformation where there was much more acceptance of various interpretations-

In answer to your question though- this is one of the passages from 2 Thessalonians 2, but the early Church fathers spoke a lot about this, too much to share now-

The Man of Sin

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You just made my point. There is no mention of any "anti-christ" in this passage, is there? Check with the one author who uses the term anti-christ to see if his definition fits with this one. It seems that folks are too willing to impose imagination onto scripture to make it fit their agenda. Can you give the biblical definition of an anti-christ?
Think about that for a moment.

There is a Biblical difference between antichrist and the AntiChrist. The Bible talks about many antichrists the small a. I will read the footnote in my Orthodox study Bible without going into at the early church fathers wrote right now.

"While we are warned against predicting the Day of the Lord, there will be signs preceding his coming. Paul instructs the Thessalonians concerning two such signs: (1) A general falling away (vs 3 apostasy) from Christ and the Church and to the revealing of the man of sin the son of perdition (vs 3) who is the Antichrist of first and second John, similar to the dragon and the beast of Revelation 13. This lawless one is described in the Old Testament (Daniel 7:25; 8:25; 11:36), mentioned by Christ (Matthew 24:15), and discussed by Paul on his first visit to Thessalonica (vs 5). The devil insights divisions among people so they will readily receive the Antichrist when he comes. the man of sin is a counterfeit Messiah with a counterfeit kingdom. He (1) exalts himself above God (vs 4, (2) performs deceptive miracles and wonders through satanic power (v 9), (3) will fool the unrighteous into following him (vv 10-12), and (4) will be removed from power by Christ himself at his second coming (v. 8). Paul instructs that when the world gets worse, Christians must not be distressed or deceived (vv. 11, 12), but rather persevere as good stewards (vv. 13-17)".

The Church as always made a distinction between antichrists & The AntiChrist

[gcdonner]

[quote="Valerie"]
But Paul does NOT mention the anti-christ, either capitalized or otherwise, nor does the writer of the Revelation. The John of Revelation may or may not be the same John of the epistles according to the early church fathers, btw.
To make the connections one must make some pretty big leaps of definition. Whether the early church father's saw it or not is not the question, but what does scripture actually say? Any of these personages predated the Orthodox church at any rate, so their commentary is not really helpful.
Show me from scripture how these three different personages become one, in your understanding.

[Valerie]

But Paul does NOT mention the anti-christ, either capitalized or otherwise, nor does the writer of the Revelation. The John of Revelation may or may not be the same John of the epistles according to the early church fathers, btw.
To make the connections one must make some pretty big leaps of definition. Whether the early church father's saw it or not is not the question, but what does scripture actually say? Any of these personages predated the Orthodox church at any rate, so their commentary is not really helpful.
Show me from scripture how these three different personages become one, in your understanding.

The Orthodox Church is where the way Church writers/father's are from, since they are the original Churche but I won't engage in Scriptural debate because we would go round & round, we sing believe different interpretations, & I'm more on the same page as theirs, not dispensationalists or preterists, both of which have their own way of combining Scriptures & interpreting. I'm at peace with the Orthodox view.

[gcdonner]

But Paul does NOT mention the anti-christ, either capitalized or otherwise, nor does the writer of the Revelation. The John of Revelation may or may not be the same John of the epistles according to the early church fathers, btw.
To make the connections one must make some pretty big leaps of definition. Whether the early church father's saw it or not is not the question, but what does scripture actually say? Any of these personages predated the Orthodox church at any rate, so their commentary is not really helpful.
Show me from scripture how these three different personages become one, in your understanding.

The Orthodox Church is where the way Church writers/father's are from, since they are the original Churche but I won't engage in Scriptural debate because we would go round & round, we sing believe different interpretations, & I'm more on the same page as theirs, not dispensationalists or preterists, both of which have their own way of combining Scriptures & interpreting. I'm at peace with the Orthodox view.

Do you attend an Orthodox church now? Somehow I thought you were in Alistair Bigg's church?

[Valerie]

The Orthodox Church is where the way Church writers/father's are from, since they are the original Churche but I won't engage in Scriptural debate because we would go round & round, we sing believe different interpretations, & I'm more on the same page as theirs, not dispensationalists or preterists, both of which have their own way of combining Scriptures & interpreting. I'm at peace with the Orthodox view.

Do you attend an Orthodox church now? Somehow I thought you were in Alistair Bigg's church?

We have a relationship with a couple of different priests that are Orthodox and love them dearly. Have learned a great deal once I removed some of my preconceived understandings, and have been shown a great deal that help me remove some of my former prejudices. We visit on occasion St. Matthews and we do sense the Spirit of God in that place during worship- however, we did not take the step of officially becoming Orthodox because we aren't comfortable with the veneration (not idolatry) and have to have apparently faith in some of the mysteries- they were never a Sola Scriptura Church, because the early church was not.

Yes we attend Alistair "Begg's" (Not Bigg's, but is funny that you spelled it that was because Begg is Scottish for 'little'!)
In every faith group we have considered sense leaving the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, we've had to consider that each one isn't 100% error free- we actually started attending Pastor Begg's Church having visited for the first time about 18 years ago- having appreciated his daily Truth for Life program & finding out he was in our area- we decided, while considering Anabaptism for awhile, & then Orthodox, that we needed a 'time out' as it was affecting our peace & Pastor Begg is dear to us too- and we appreciate his humility, and he doesn't claim to 'know for sure' about everything- but we feel he's pretty close and love his heart for Jesus. So now it's been 4 years of 'waiting' on the Lord there- and we have to accept that some of what Pastor says, is contrary to others- and visa versa- it's just the sign of the times. He actually doesn't really want to get into eschatology mainly it seems, because it is so divisive and no one seems to be 'sure'.
Since he encourages us to read the Bible ourselves I think that gives us the freedom to pray to understand and just be at peace with leaving eschatology in God's hands- I personally feel like Jesus wanted us to know the signs to watch for so others will not fall prey to the deception.

[gcdonner]

The Orthodox Church is where the way Church writers/father's are from, since they are the original Churche but I won't engage in Scriptural debate because we would go round & round, we sing believe different interpretations, & I'm more on the same page as theirs, not dispensationalists or preterists, both of which have their own way of combining Scriptures & interpreting. I'm at peace with the Orthodox view.

Do you attend an Orthodox church now? Somehow I thought you were in Alistair Bigg's church?

We have a relationship with a couple of different priests that are Orthodox and love them dearly. Have learned a great deal once I removed some of my preconceived understandings, and have been shown a great deal that help me remove some of my former prejudices. We visit on occasion St. Matthews and we do sense the Spirit of God in that place during worship- however, we did not take the step of officially becoming Orthodox because we aren't comfortable with the veneration (not idolatry) and have to have apparently faith in some of the mysteries- they were never a Sola Scriptura Church, because the early church was not.

Yes we attend Alistair "Begg's" (Not Bigg's, but is funny that you spelled it that was because Begg is Scottish for 'little'!)
In every faith group we have considered sense leaving the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, we've had to consider that each one isn't 100% error free- we actually started attending Pastor Begg's Church having visited for the first time about 18 years ago- having appreciated his daily Truth for Life program & finding out he was in our area- we decided, while considering Anabaptism for awhile, & then Orthodox, that we needed a 'time out' as it was affecting our peace & Pastor Begg is dear to us too- and we appreciate his humility, and he doesn't claim to 'know for sure' about everything- but we feel he's pretty close and love his heart for Jesus. So now it's been 4 years of 'waiting' on the Lord there- and we have to accept that some of what Pastor says, is contrary to others- and visa versa- it's just the sign of the times. He actually doesn't really want to get into eschatology mainly it seems, because it is so divisive and no one seems to be 'sure'.
Since he encourages us to read the Bible ourselves I think that gives us the freedom to pray to understand and just be at peace with leaving eschatology in God's hands- I personally feel like Jesus wanted us to know the signs to watch for so others will not fall prey to the deception.

Peace be with you. I have found that there is no church with which anyone will agree entirely with on this earth, but the need to find fellowship and the witness of the Spirit with other believers is essential. Strangely, the place that we felt most at home was the small Lutheran church we attended in Minnesota. I count the pastor there to be a very close friend. We had a special relationship and could talk about our differences without being offended with each other.

[Josh]

You know, gcdonner, preterism/postmillenialism is the stock and trade of Reformed folks like Alistair Begg, although nowadays he tends to hide his preterist views, probably so he doesn’t alienate his rather large following. Perhaps one day Valerie will roll in here to join your full-throated promotion of postmillenialism.

When that day comes, I will retire and rest, knowing my work is done.