Bible Topic Thread (merged)

Chapter 13 describes the 7 headed beast and the beast that comes from the earth, but I still don't remember it ever calling either (and most presumably the second) the AntiChrist.

In the book of Revelation, John refers to the final and ultimate Antichrist as the Beast. The Beast will be the embodiment of the entire spirit of antichrist. He will have supernatural power and global influence.

The Beast first appears as a political leader, who will make a covenant with Israel and assume world leadership. Later he takes on the role of a religious leader who is worshipped. Supported by his sidekick "the False Prophet" the Beast will deceive the world. He, his prophet, and Satan will form an unholy trinity or "Axis of Evil" to rule all of creation.

The word Antichrist appears only in the epistles of John. As discussed earlier, John's reference was more pointed to a false doctrine than to a particular person. However, because of the interest in the "person" or "persons" described in Revelation, a brief look at the connection between John's idea concerning antichrist and the beasts described in Revelation is essential.

If you are anti something, then you are against it. This, I believe, is the more accurate meaning of the term used in John's epistles.

Thoughts?
 
but Revelation (written by John, but quite possibly not John the Apostle) never calls him the AntiChrist and seems to revert back to Daniel's description of the apocalypse more than from the epistles of John the Apostle.
 
In the book of Revelation, John refers to the final and ultimate Antichrist as the Beast. The Beast will be the embodiment of the entire spirit of antichrist. He will have supernatural power and global influence.

The Beast first appears as a political leader, who will make a covenant with Israel and assume world leadership. Later he takes on the role of a religious leader who is worshipped. Supported by his sidekick "the False Prophet" the Beast will deceive the world. He, his prophet, and Satan will form an unholy trinity or "Axis of Evil" to rule all of creation.

The word Antichrist appears only in the epistles of John. As discussed earlier, John's reference was more pointed to a false doctrine than to a particular person. However, because of the interest in the "person" or "persons" described in Revelation, a brief look at the connection between John's idea concerning antichrist and the beasts described in Revelation is essential.

If you are anti something, then you are against it. This, I believe, is the more accurate meaning of the term used in John's epistles.

Thoughts?

That is why he is the "GURU"...great post OE
 
but Revelation (written by John, but quite possibly not John the Apostle) never calls him the AntiChrist and seems to revert back to Daniel's description of the apocalypse more than from the epistles of John the Apostle.

The word Antichrist appears only in the epistles of John. As discussed earlier, John's reference was more pointed to a false doctrine than to a particular person. However, because of the interest in the "person" or "persons" described in Revelation, a brief look at the connection between John's idea concerning antichrist and the beasts described in Revelation is essential.

Reposting from my rant......
 
The word Antichrist appears only in the epistles of John. As discussed earlier, John's reference was more pointed to a false doctrine than to a particular person. However, because of the interest in the "person" or "persons" described in Revelation, a brief look at the connection between John's idea concerning antichrist and the beasts described in Revelation is essential.

Reposting from my rant......

I read your rant, but my point still stands. It's quite possible it is the same AntiChrist, but you have to admit, he's never called the AntiChrist and there are differences in the two.

Basically I'm just fueling the fire about Bible fallibility and knowing the writers of the Bible. The differences in the end of times are a huge example of why the Bible may not be perfect.
 
I read your rant, but my point still stands. It's quite possible it is the same AntiChrist, but you have to admit, he's never called the AntiChrist and there are differences in the two.

Basically I'm just fueling the fire about Bible fallibility and knowing the writers of the Bible. The differences in the end of times are a huge example of why the Bible may not be perfect.

Hmmm.......

Two meanings go along with the prefix anti. The first carries the thought of "instead of" or "a substitute." A better way of putting this would be "false Christ." The second meaning is probably the one most often thought of - "against," or "against Christ." If you are anti something, then you are against it.

:dunno:
 
Hmmm.......

Two meanings go along with the prefix anti. The first carries the thought of "instead of" or "a substitute." A better way of putting this would be "false Christ." The second meaning is probably the one most often thought of - "against," or "against Christ." If you are anti something, then you are against it.

:dunno:

Like I said, I was just wanting to showcase differences in the Bible. I also believe there is A AntiChrist, as in someone above all others who will rule the world and lead as a false Christ. But back on topic, I really doubt Barack Obama is that man.
 
Like I said, I was just wanting to showcase differences in the Bible. I also believe there is A AntiChrist, as in someone above all others who will rule the world and lead as a false Christ. But back on topic, I really doubt Barack Obama is that man.

You don't like the axis of evil or the unholy trinity?

Obama is not the Anti-Christ.... The Anti-Christ knows there are only 50 States...... and he would wear a flag tie tack.
 

VN Store



Back
Top