And Now, the Antichrist!

I don't have time to reply to all of this. I am now on my phone so will just hit a few high points. I did not leave out "the Antichrist". I even underlined it.

You are right about the grammar point. I was typing two different Greek related posts and got my wires crossed.

I duly noted your usual bandwagon fallacy. The majority of Church authorities were also agreed on RC doctrine before the Reformation. This is not a case where the most votes for a doctrine means it is correct.

 

Even your grandfather believed he would rule the world.
Futurists have a wide range of different views on the Antichrist.

 

This is a very good statement. We would all be RC if no one ever questioned popular doctrine.

 

I've seen "antichrist" defined as anyone who is not FOR Christ.

"Beast" refers both to the man who will become a great world ruler, and his empire.

He will obviously be the most-evil person who will ever live. he will make Hitler, etc. seem like naughty toddlers in comparison. Once he gets rolling, no man will be able to defeat him either in war or politix. he and his deputy the false prophet are the ONLY humans mentioned in Scripture as being cast alive into the lake of fire without appearing at the great White Throne for judgment, without passing "Go" or collecting $200. Their end will come when Jesus returns & they assemble their army, & those of their vassals, to try to attack Jesus.

He was written about by Daniel, Paul, and John. No other evil person is mentioned that much in Scripture.

I believe he will be ONE MAN, as Paul wrote that he shall enter the temple & proclaim himself to be God. No army could do that.

From Rev. 13, we see he will have a miracle-working false prophet as his deputy. it appears this FP will only be able to perform his supernatural feats in the presence of his boss.

But I see nothing in Scripture to indicate the acthal"beast/antichrist/man of sin/that Wicked" will be anything but ONE MAN.

I don't see any of today's celebrities filling that role. None are popular enough to gain worldwide acceptance. I believe that, like Napoleon & Hitler, he will come from "nowhere" & quietly gain much power before he makes his move for near-total power. Remember, he is to overthrow three other rulers enroute to forming his empire.

(Note: Alcazar wrote what became the foundation-stone work for modern preterism to try to defend his pope from being labeled the antichrist, which is a false doctrine in itself.)

 

This person designed to deceive.

So enamored with deceit that he explores ways to support the deceit.

Typical of the papist filled with deceit, they all join in working to further deceit, and supporting all manner of deceit.

Centuries of practice will culminate in support of that single one filled with deceit - the anti-christ.

How Baptists are swindled into believing this completely false presentation of Scriptures is but the microcosm of what is to come.

The world will chase after the lie and proclaim it righteous.

 

John stated in the Greek to us that there have been many antichrists during his time even, but that there is still to come an Antichrist right before the Second Coming event!

 

I find it fascinating to consider all that has been and is being prearranged that the control by an Antichrist will take place.

Just one as an illustration: The breakdown of security on the web ripples through the world and brings dismay and heartache. People long for a solution that they may be without fear. So that they may rejoice in "peace and safety." And this is but a single world wide aspect.

 

Ah, the shackling of being responsible for the actions of the rich and famous father(s).

Well, famous, he was far more frugal then most.

 

Perhaps he is trying to suggest that preterism wasn't started and propagated by the papists who longed to find some scheme to dispute millennialism and allowed and encouraged the Jesuit priest to construct preterism out of deceitful cunning with no factual basis in Scriptures.

 

Doesn't Paul use Belial as a term for Satan, or a demon?

I don't recall it being used as other than a name of identification rather then a metaphor of indication.

 

I believe you are being purposefully obtuse. I am not going to write it out again.

 

Any commentator who equates John's "antichrist" with the "prince that shall come" of Dan, has not studied Daniel, but just propagated others ideas.

Please see my following post.

 

"I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. The majority is always wrong?"

When I was at school one of our teachers said, "Never be frightened to go against the majority, because the majority are usually wrong."

I found that to be sound advice and that is why I check for myself.

 

There are an estimated 1.6 Muslims in the world
There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world.
There are estimated 900 million Protestants worldwide.

This is why I question the majority.

 

How do you know he did, and you don't?

Im just asking.