And Now, the Antichrist!

[John of Japan]

Oh good grief. Obfuscating means to confuse the issue, not necessarily maliciously. I had said the majority is not always right. And you seemed to not understand that. Do you really think the majority is right?

Do you even read what I write for content, or just for ammunition?

Oh, good grief, you still called me a liar.

I read what you write for debate. I thought that was what we were here for. Care to debate? How about the imperfective verbal aspect of "antichrist shall come" in 1 John 2:18? If you don't know what that is (it wasn't taught when I first took Greek), stretch yourself. Learn.

 

[John of Japan]

I read somewhere that the last enemy was death.

Should I have said that the Antichrist was the last human enemy of Christ? I thought that was evident.

 

[David Kent]

Rebuke me when I do.

I came to think I went too far with that "...game" statement, and went back and changed it. I apologize.

Apology accepted. I don't usually rebuke people. I believe that people should have their say. I will say if I don't agree with them.
On another board I have been called an heretic, a false teacher and worshiping a different god because they think I am a Calvinist. I have never reported any one on there. I have only ever reported anyone and that was when I was called a "buddy of Satan"

I try to be polite, but I guess I slip now and again as most do.

 

[John of Japan]

I felt the same way about my uncle, Kenneth Kantzer. BA Ashland College; MA in History, Ohio State University; M.Div/Th.M., Faith Theological Seminary; Ph.D. Harvard University. Professor of Theology, Wheaton College; Academic Dean, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, President Trinity College, Editor, Christianity Today, president The Evangelical Theological Society.

I would get tongue tied around him even as an adult!

So Dr. Kantzer was your uncle? Awesome!

On the other side of the coin, I have a missionary friend whose uncle was Clark Pinnock.

 

[John of Japan]

Apology accepted. I don't usually rebuke people. I believe that people should have their say. I will say if I don't agree with them.
On another board I have been called an heretic, a false teacher and worshiping a different god because they think I am a Calvinist. I have never reported any one on there. I have only ever reported anyone and that was when I was called a "buddy of Satan"

Wow, that's really harsh. Fortunately, the BB is moderated better than that.

I try to be polite, but I guess I slip now and again as most do.

We all have our slippery days.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh good grief. Obfuscating means to confuse the issue, not necessarily maliciously. I had said the majority is not always right. And you seemed to not understand that. Do you really think the majority is right?

Why in the world would I think the majority is right? I simply threw a thought out there to bolster my position, and now you guys are making a big deal about it. I didn't understand your point because...well, it made no sense to me in the context of the discussion.

Now, would you care to get the thread back on track? I've made quite a few unanswered points about the final Antichrist.

 

[David Kent]

Should I have said that the Antichrist was the last human enemy of Christ? I thought that was evident.

John, we are not all Greek scholars, so please give us a break. We are all Christians and we should treat everybody as such.
Remember that all beliefs on prophecy are only interpretations. The Jews got most prophecies wrong and I guess that we have as well. I once discussed one prophecy with a pastor and he said "I am not wrong" (he wouldn't have agreed with any of us,) I replied "We cannot all be right, but we can all be wrong." I do believe that,

 

[asterisktom]

Oh, good grief, you still called me a liar.

I read what you write for debate. I thought that was what we were here for. Care to debate? How about the imperfective verbal aspect of "antichrist shall come" in 1 John 2:18? If you don't know what that is (it wasn't taught when I first took Greek), stretch yourself. Learn.

No, I am taking a break from your condescension and thin-skinned overreaction. I'll skip this class. I have more important things to do than argue with you. Any challenges to your belief system is taken personally.

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning the "Beast" of Revelation being the Antichrist, consider the following facts:

1. He "makes war" against the two witnesses of Christ (11:7). This certainly makes him an antichrist, if not "the" Antichrist.
2. So what makes him "the" Antichrist (capital A)? As a futurist, looking at Rev. 4-22 as unfulfilled, the Beast is the obvious choice.
3. The Beast receives power from the Red Dragon, which is Satan (13:2). So Satan empowers him to oppose Christ--the Antichrist.

So basically, since 1, 2, 3 John are epistles, to simply use a descriptive and literal term--Antichrist--is fitting. However, John's Revelation is apocalyptic literature, so it is packed with figures of speech and over the top rhetoric. Therefore, "The Beast" is an apocalyptic way for John to refer to the character he had previously called "the Antichrist" (with the singular definite article, indicating one person), who "shall come" (present deponent verb with the imperfective aspect--he's on his way, but hasn't arrived yet).

 

[TCassidy]

See when you said how many have I influenced, that's the part that bothers me.

It ought to bother all of us. Remember the old ditty, "Only one life, shall soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last."

Do you think I am proud of what I have done?

I have no idea what you have done.

I can't go back in time and further my education

No, but you can determine to continue your education now, going forward. I got my last degree when I was 55. It's never too late to learn.

I don't think leaving my wife and going off to Bible college now is the best idea.

I don't recall anyone suggesting you do so. All I posted was some things about my uncle. I never mentioned you. But on that subject, I quit my job and started seminary when I was 30 years old, with a wife and kids and everything. I worked full time and went to school full time. My wife also worked full time. It was a sacrifice on both of our parts. After I completed that part of my education my wife went back to school and received her Ed.D. when she was 50 years old.

Its no one's fault, but my own, but the whole what have I done line is very disheartening.

We should be evaluating our service for Christ every day.

But I would not be in anymore awe of someone with a bunch of letters by their name

I'm sorry, but that is just a personal attack. Nobody has said they are in awe of anyone because of "a bunch of letters by their name." I made it clear to an unbiased reader that the man's lifetime of service to Christ was what I was in awe of. His willingness to sacrifice. He was 34 with a wife and 2 kids when he finally received his Ph.D. from Harvard.

Don't be intimidated because people have chosen a more difficult educational or service path than you. God uses all different kinds of people in His service.

But try not to denigrate those who have chosen the path less traveled.

 

[John of Japan]

I still see a 2000 year gap in Daniel as unbiblical without preconceived information, and I don't believe you could prove it other wise. Nor have I heard any good explanation for the Prince to Come to be the Antichrist. Even that commentary you gave me said the same thing.

I'm not sure what 2000 year gap in Daniel you are referring to, and I certainly don't know how a literal interpretation of the Bible can be "unbiblical."

As for the "prince that shall come," that is within the prophecy of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Therefore, it is prophesying a Roman. Cross referencing that with the "seven mountains" (clearly Rome) of the Beast in Rev. 17, and we have the Antichrist in Daniel.

It's not a hill I would die on, but I believe it to be a valid interpretation.

I believe the Jewish Rabbis have the correct interpretation for that passage. Can't discredit them, they are fluent in the language

Sure I can discredit them. As unbelievers, they do not have the Holy Spirit within them, so therefore they cannot experience the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. I don't trust any Jewish interpreters who are not born again.

 

[John of Japan]

John, we are not all Greek scholars, so please give us a break. We are all Christians and we should treat everybody as such.

Good! Since you are not all Greek scholars, then you can learn from Greek scholars, just as I do. My problem is with those who constantly denigrate my posts when I bring up the Greek. That's just dumb. If the NT was written in Greek, then Greek is vital to understand it. Translations are never authoritative.

Remember that all beliefs on prophecy are only interpretations. The Jews got most prophecies wrong and I guess that we have as well. I once discussed one prophecy with a pastor and he said "I am not wrong" (he wouldn't have agreed with any of us,) I replied "We cannot all be right, but we can all be wrong." I do believe that,

Okay.

 

[David Kent]

Just to let everybody know, the only certificates I have ever had are food Hygiene certificates, updated every three years, my current is higher level.

But I do study the bible.

 

[John of Japan]

No, I am taking a break from your condescension and thin-skinned overreaction. I'll skip this class. I have more important things to do than argue with you. Any challenges to your belief system is taken personally.

Great. Then we'll get along without your allegorizing interpretations and full preterist views.

And now I can point out to everyone that you have no answer for my interpretation of the "coming" (imperfective aspect) Antichrist (with definite article) in 1 John 2:18.

 

[David Kent]

Horse Feathers.

The antichrist will be ONE MAN; there have been many popes. While the "beast from the earth" of Rev. 13 might be a pope or some other RCC official, the main man won;t be. This man won't acknowledge God or anyone/anything that's worshipped as being a deity. He will proclaim himself to be God.

Scripture sez no man will defeat the beast, while the pope was taken captive by Napoleon in 1798. And all the popes have at least paid lip service to God while the true antichrist won't acknowledge God at all.

And while Hitler's parents were catholic, Adolf himself was more into the occult than anything else called religion. Hitler & Co. used the RCC delegates of the Reichstag to pass the "Enabling Act" which gave him near-absolute power in Germany, then he turned on the RCC, confiscating their property, booting out or killing many of their clergy, & banning their organizations.

Your whole idea is completely off. The true antichrist has NOT yet come.

Hitler was a papist through and through. His main adviser was von Papen who was the pope's man amongst the top Nazis. The wartime pope was the Papal nuncio in Berlin before the war. Hitler was a choirboy in Linz Cathedral which is where, it is said, that he first saw the swastika on the ceiling of the cathedral. If you can find a copy in a library, I suggest you read The Vatican Against Europe. by Edmund Paris a French Catholic. One chapter is The Pope Created Hitler.
Edmund Paris gives documentation on all his claims. Chick said he was murdered by the papists.

Hitler made a concordat withe the Vatican and it lasted throughout the war. Hitler based the SS on the Jesuits. Von papen was tried at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunal but the pope got him off and later made him the Papal Chamberlain.
Paris showed pictures of German bishops blessing Nazi emblems

 

[InTheLight]

Hitler was a papist through and through. His main adviser was von Papen who was the pope's man amongst the top Nazis. The wartime pope was the Papal nuncio in Berlin before the war. Hitler was a choirboy in Linz Cathedral which is where, it is said, that he first saw the swastika on the ceiling of the cathedral. If you can find a copy in a library, I suggest you read The Vatican Against Europe. by Edmund Paris a French Catholic. One chapter is The Pope Created Hitler.
Edmund Paris gives documentation on all his claims. Chick said he was murdered by the papists.

Hitler used the Catholic church to aid his rise to power and once he was Fuhrer, he tossed them aside.

Hitler made a concordat withe the Vatican and it lasted throughout the war.

Not sure where you get your history from, but the Reichskonkordat (or Concordat between the Holy See and German Reich) was made on July 20, 1933 between the Vatican and President Paul Von Hindenburg. Technically it is still in effect (never been rescinded) but in reality it lasted about 5 days, because on July 25 a new sterilization law was passed which offended Catholics. On July 30th the Nazis took steps to dissolve the Catholic Youth League.

On of the clauses in the agreement was that new Catholic bishops would swear a loyalty oath to the German Reich and that clergy must not work for political parties. During the next years thousands of Catholic priests, nuns and lay leaders were arrested. Erich Klausener, leader of Catholic Action was murdered on June 30, 1934. Scores of Catholic publications were suppressed.

On March 14, 1937 the Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Burning Sorrow), charging the Nazi government with “evasion” and “violation” of the concordat and accusing it of sowing “the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church.” On “the horizon of Germany” the Pope saw “the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars … which have no other aim than … of extermination.” (from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, chapter 8)

Von papen was tried at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunal but the pope got him off and later made him the Papal Chamberlain.

Again, I don't know where you are getting your history. Von Papen was acquitted because of a hung jury (so to speak--US and British voted acquittal; France and Russia voted guilty). He was then sentenced to eight years hard labor by a denazification court. Eventually he would get his title Papal Chamberlain restored by the pope in 1959.

 

[David Kent]

On March 14, 1937 the Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Burning Sorrow), charging the Nazi government with “evasion” and “violation” of the concordat and accusing it of sowing “the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church.” On “the horizon of Germany” the Pope saw “the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars … which have no other aim than … of extermination.” (from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, chapter 8)

And he died soon after, probably murdered by the Gestapo.

 

[InTheLight]

And he died soon after, probably murdered by the Gestapo.

If dying "soon after" means two years later, and if "murdered by the Gestapo" means died of a heart attack at age 81, OK.

You do realize that by speculating the Gestapo murdered the pope it does not help your theory that Hitler was a "papist through and through."

 

[John of Japan]

And he died soon after, probably murdered by the Gestapo.

We must conclude then, that neither Hitler nor Pope Pius XI were the final antichrist.

 

[David Kent]

If dying "soon after" means two years later, and if "murdered by the Gestapo" means died of a heart attack at age 81, OK.

You do realize that by speculating the Gestapo murdered the pope it does not help your theory that Hitler was a "papist through and through."

If he changed his mind about Hitler who he had supported,

Like John Paul 1 died of a heart attack? Some hopes.