The Antichrist's identity?

[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!

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. Can't see or won't see? There was a song popular many years ago now that said, "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

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
It was precisely because his vision was relevant to contemporary events that it was couched in "hidden" language. Only the church would know the significance of it's message and couldn't be persecuted further for another charge of blasphemy, either by the Romans or the Jews. If it wasn't contemporary, then how could John say,

Rev 22:10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 
11  He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

This would deny the great commission. Has the great commission been suspended for over 2000 years? This is in direct contradistinction to the message that was given to Daniel accompanying his prophetic visions:

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

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?

From my studies, the book of Revelation was written 35 years before the end of the first century, and has in view, not the end of the "world" as some imagine, but rather the end of the Old Covenant. History demonstrates that all the things spoken in the Revelation happened to the nation of Israel, in perfect fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies.
You may choose not to follow the view of preterists, but you can't deny it's historical accuracy when taking the NT in it's context. Those who denied the power of Christ and his prophetic utterances, did, in fact suffer all the consequences of the book of Revelation, with a couple of exceptions that seem to go beyond the scope of the first century. (Rev 20)

If Peter was inspired, then how do you explain away his statement, made circa AD60

1Pe 4:7  But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 

Certainly the end of creation was not "at hand", but indeed the end of the Old Covenant (OC) was, just as also the writer of the book of Hebrews pointed out:

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

Some things to consider, eh?

[Valerie]

Aren't you proud of me George I've been so quiet through this discussion?

regarding when the book of Revelation was written:

My Orthodox Study Bible States this: the vast majority of scholars hold that Revelation was composed during the fierce persecution in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, A.D.81 to 96 when John was in the exile on the Isle of Patmos. Of course they did not state which scholars this majority is. However since the Orthodox Church dates back to the time of the Apostles and they are the ones that canonized which books became our Bible I trust their knowledge on this. I would want to point out one little fact regarding the dates and that is in Revelation chapter 2 when Jesus speaks of Antipas, his faithful martyr in verse 13, and to pass was Bishop of Pergamos and was martyred in 8092 by being burned to death in a heated bronze bowl having witnessed before the Roman governor that Jesus is Lord. Because of that reference alone and with it being known when Antipas was martyred in A.D. 92, it gives support to the Orthodox statement that most scholars believe in the later date of Revelation being written, and I have read that Apostle John lived to be approximately 95 years old.

[gcdonner]

Aren't you proud of me George I've been so quiet through this discussion?

regarding when the book of Revelation was written:

My Orthodox Study Bible States this: the vast majority of scholars hold that Revelation was composed during the fierce persecution in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, A.D.81 to 96 when John was in the exile on the Isle of Patmos. Of course they did not state which scholars this majority is. However since the Orthodox Church dates back to the time of the Apostles and they are the ones that canonized which books became our Bible I trust their knowledge on this. I would want to point out one little fact regarding the dates and that is in Revelation chapter 2 when Jesus speaks of Antipas, his faithful martyr in verse 13, and to pass was Bishop of Pergamos and was martyred in 8092 by being burned to death in a heated bronze bowl having witnessed before the Roman governor that Jesus is Lord. Because of that reference alone and with it being known when Antipas was martyred in A.D. 92, it gives support to the Orthodox statement that most scholars believe in the later date of Revelation being written, and I have read that Apostle John lived to be approximately 95 years old.

First, contrary to what your Orthodox bible teaches, the split between the Roman church and the Eastern orthodox did not take place until 1054 and it was the Roman Pope who first excommunicated the Patriarch of the EO. Prior to that there was only "one" church...but that is not a part of this discussion is it?

[Valerie]

Aren't you proud of me George I've been so quiet through this discussion?

regarding when the book of Revelation was written:

My Orthodox Study Bible States this: the vast majority of scholars hold that Revelation was composed during the fierce persecution in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, A.D.81 to 96 when John was in the exile on the Isle of Patmos. Of course they did not state which scholars this majority is. However since the Orthodox Church dates back to the time of the Apostles and they are the ones that canonized which books became our Bible I trust their knowledge on this. I would want to point out one little fact regarding the dates and that is in Revelation chapter 2 when Jesus speaks of Antipas, his faithful martyr in verse 13, and to pass was Bishop of Pergamos and was martyred in 8092 by being burned to death in a heated bronze bowl having witnessed before the Roman governor that Jesus is Lord. Because of that reference alone and with it being known when Antipas was martyred in A.D. 92, it gives support to the Orthodox statement that most scholars believe in the later date of Revelation being written, and I have read that Apostle John lived to be approximately 95 years old.

First, contrary to what your Orthodox bible teaches, the split between the Roman church and the Eastern orthodox did not take place until 1054 and it was the Roman Pope who first excommunicated the Patriarch of the EO. Prior to that there was only "one" church...but that is not a part of this discussion is it?

That is correct. there weren't two churches at that time they were considered one church till the great schism period as to who departed from who I don't know I'm just going by the scholars and the early church that claim when Revelation was written and when Apostle Paul died and the fact that and to pass the faithful martyr the year he was martyred it gives you that time frame of when Revelation was written and it was closer to the end of the first century

[JohnHurt]

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?

It does not matter what you read, it is what you "do" that matters.

If Matthew alone is sufficient, why quote John?

The Four Gospels are sufficient for the truth. However, the early church, including Augustine, held that Matthew was superior to Mark and Luke, in that Mark and Luke were copies of the original Matthew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis



Matthew and John were both Apostles, and were called by Christ to give His message to the world. (Matthew 10:1-5).

You won't find the names of Mark and Luke in this list of Apostles. They were not authorized by Christ to give His message.

So for me, Matthew and John have greater "weight" than Mark and Luke. Matthew and John are told from two different perspectives and so are not "synoptic", because they were two different witnesses of what happened. Matthew and John were actual witnesses of what they wrote, while Mark and Luke received their knowledge of Christ from someone else. Luke admits this in Luke 1:1-4. In court, Mark and Luke would be considered "hearsay" evidence. But still worthwhile.

But it is what is in Matthew and John, but has been left out of Mark and Luke, that is the problem. Compare for what is in Matthew, but missing in Mark and Luke, and you will see a pattern.

Regardless, I hold even Mark and Luke to be vastly superior to the writings John Calvin, Martin Lügner, I mean, Luther, or even the other books of the New Testament, because the Gospels contain the teachings of Christ. If these other NT books conflict with the teachings of Christ, then they should not be in the Canon. Certain books from a certain writer seems to have introduced an entirely new religion, in opposition to the teachings of the True Christ. But that is also another thread.

The Anti Christ is the false "christ" that has been substituted for the real Christ. Christ warned us of this in Matthew 24:

(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The Dispensationalist has "dispensed" with the real Christ and replaced His Teachings with the doctrines of men, This is the Anti Christ. Yes, they have deceived the very elect.

And Christ warned us not to believe those that have claimed "direct revelation" from Christ:

Matthew 24:
(26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Who said he saw Christ in the desert, a Christ that no one else saw? Who had a vision of Christ when he was alone in his secret chambers? Acts 9:10

Oral Roberts said he saw Christ 60' tall, and Christ told him to build a prayer tower. That made Oral Roberts rich.
Joseph Smith saw Christ on a hilltop in New York State. He liked having polygamy with everyone else's wife.
Ellen White saw Christ in her visions. She wanted to be important, even though her prophecies failed repeatedly.

All of these people have overturned the teachings of Christ and replaced them with the doctrines of men. They were robbers and thieves.

As Christ said in John 10:

(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

(8) All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

I can't hear anything but the words written in red.

Thanks,

John

[gcdonner]

Aren't you proud of me George I've been so quiet through this discussion?

regarding when the book of Revelation was written:

My Orthodox Study Bible States this: the vast majority of scholars hold that Revelation was composed during the fierce persecution in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, A.D.81 to 96 when John was in the exile on the Isle of Patmos. Of course they did not state which scholars this majority is. However since the Orthodox Church dates back to the time of the Apostles and they are the ones that canonized which books became our Bible I trust their knowledge on this. I would want to point out one little fact regarding the dates and that is in Revelation chapter 2 when Jesus speaks of Antipas, his faithful martyr in verse 13, and to pass was Bishop of Pergamos and was martyred in 8092 by being burned to death in a heated bronze bowl having witnessed before the Roman governor that Jesus is Lord. Because of that reference alone and with it being known when Antipas was martyred in A.D. 92, it gives support to the Orthodox statement that most scholars believe in the later date of Revelation being written, and I have read that Apostle John lived to be approximately 95 years old.

First, contrary to what your Orthodox bible teaches, the split between the Roman church and the Eastern orthodox did not take place until 1054 and it was the Roman Pope who first excommunicated the Patriarch of the EO. Prior to that there was only "one" church...but that is not a part of this discussion is it?

That is correct. there weren't two churches at that time they were considered one church till the great schism period as to who departed from who I don't know I'm just going by the scholars and the early church that claim when Revelation was written and when Apostle Paul died and the fact that and to pass the faithful martyr the year he was martyred it gives you that time frame of when Revelation was written and it was closer to the end of the first century

I will reply with more historical evidence demonstrating the earlier date and refuting the later date for the composition of the Revelation late today. I didn't have time last night or this morning. Thank you for your kind interaction, Valerie.

[gcdonner]

First, contrary to what your Orthodox bible teaches, the split between the Roman church and the Eastern orthodox did not take place until 1054 and it was the Roman Pope who first excommunicated the Patriarch of the EO. Prior to that there was only "one" church...but that is not a part of this discussion is it?

That is correct. there weren't two churches at that time they were considered one church till the great schism period as to who departed from who I don't know I'm just going by the scholars and the early church that claim when Revelation was written and when Apostle Paul died and the fact that and to pass the faithful martyr the year he was martyred it gives you that time frame of when Revelation was written and it was closer to the end of the first century

I will reply with more historical evidence demonstrating the earlier date and refuting the later date for the composition of the Revelation late today. I didn't have time last night or this morning. Thank you for your kind interaction, Valerie.

The following article is used by permission of the author, Kurt Simmons;

Church Fathers

As previously noted, several patristic writers give testimony for an early dating of Revelation. Tertullian places John’s martyrdom at Rome at the time of Peter and Paul: “Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”[6] The universal tradition of the early church is that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom under Nero at Rome. Tertullian clearly joins John’s death in both time and place to those of the other apostles. Furthermore, the manner of death (boiling in oil) is consistent with the cruel deaths and tortures devised by Nero for Christians reported by Tactitus.[7] Ephiphanius places John’s banishment and the Revelation under “Claudius.”[8] However, many scholars believe that this is a probable reference to Nero Claudius Caesar, and not the emperor Claudius, Nero having assumed the Claudian family name upon his adoption by the emperor. Andreas of Cappadocia who, although himself repeating Irenaeus’ tradition of a Domitian banishment, mentions in his commentary that there were not wanting those who applied passages to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Arethas makes similar comments, and states concerning Rev. 7:4 “When the evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans.” Theophlact, in his preface to his commentary on John, places the apostle’s banishment 32 years after the Ascension of Christ, squarely in the reign of Nero. Bearing in mind that patristic writers who attribute John’s banishment to Domitian do so based upon Irenaeus, and offer no independent testimony of their own, the independent testimony of external tradition therefore is clearly weighted in favor of a pre-A.D. 70 date of composition.

There is much more to the article which I would be happy to post if there is further interest or questions regarding the reasons for the early dating of the book of Revelation. This particular part of the article replies to your (Valerie) quotes from the early church fathers. The author's view is that the book of Revelation was written sometime between 56-70 AD. I should point out that it is very possible that the Apostle Paul was referring to John's Revelation in 2Cor. 12:1-5, which was written probably around 56-60AD. Just a possible consideration.

[Outsider]

Can't see or won't see? There was a song popular many years ago now that said, "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Let me ask you this: who were the two witnesses, killed in Jerusalem and whose death was celebrated by all the people in the world giving presents to each other?

[gcdonner]

Can't see or won't see? There was a song popular many years ago now that said, "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Let me ask you this: who were the two witnesses, killed in Jerusalem and whose death was celebrated by all the people in the world giving presents to each other?

I don't know, do you? There are some things that history has not kept.

[Valerie]

Can't see or won't see? There was a song popular many years ago now that said, "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Let me ask you this: who were the two witnesses, killed in Jerusalem and whose death was celebrated by all the people in the world giving presents to each other?

I don't know, do you? There are some things that history has not kept.

Seriously GC???