Anti-Christ Errors

[Wild-Eyes]

After seeing so many anti-Christ threads here (and having of course been subjected to various theories in person), I have to make a few complaints. Now please note, this isn't me saying to Christians, "You're wrong, and I'm right". I am pointing out some errors not from the skeptic's point of view, but from the Christian-biblical point of view.

No one will know the anti-Christ. This is the biggest thing that gets me: Christians proclaiming they know (or are fairly certain, or have a high hunch) who the Anti-Christ is. Just like Christ will come "as a theif in the night", no one will know who the anti-Christ is. In fact, it's theorized that one of the Anti-Christ's purposes is to lure away 'false Christians' to his side before the rapture.

The Anti-Christ's location is unknown. There is not a single verse in the Bible that gives any inkling of where the Anti-Christ will be. Eliminate the theorists, they'd claim he was from Antartica if there was anything slightly "Anti-Christian" or "Anti-American" there.

There is not only one Anti-Christ. While in revelations, it talks of a man (who is called a false prophet, not "The Anti-Christ") who will mislead others, there are references elsewhere in the Bible that mention many Anti-Christs. And what is an anti-Christ? Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ, or speaks out against him. The world is filled with millions of them.

The Anti-Christ is not mentioned in the Old Testament. The Daniel reference is referring not to the anti-Christ, but to Antiochus IV.

I don't know what to make of Christians who selfproclaim prophecy like we often see, ie, "So and so is the Anti Christ!" or "The Anti-Christ will come from 'the New Roman Empire'!" As a previous Christian, I'm slightly insulted by the way these people slander themselves and their own religious texts by simply not reading the very text they claim to believe in so strongly. I won't go so far as to claim these people are not Christians, but I do believe that they are at best misguided or misunderstanding of their own religion. Nor do I mean to insult any members of this board who have at some time made such claims. If any of them are reading this, I simply ask them to please, read over your religious text again, study it diligently, and learn the truth of such matters. Do not go about following the theories of other people so easily; indeed, many of them are likely unwilling false prophets themselves.

And again, I make no claims for the veracity of the Bible or its prophecies, nor whether or not I believe in them. I'm only pointing out the internal errors of such self-claimed prophecying.

[PsychicPenguin]

OK.. what do you think about the Nero theory?? I found it pretty compelling.

Everybody missed the point! John was not prophecizing something in a very distant future. He was criticizing the Roman Empire, but he had to do it in a very subtle way (otherwise he would be in a great trouble). Take a look.

http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Lessons 6/Who Is the Beast.htm

[PsychicPenguin]

sorry.. u have to copy paste the link. It has a space character so the link doesn't work.

[BurnSide]

I just think it's funny that for 2000 years now people have been talking about an anti-christ appearing and everything.

It's not REAL. You are gullible. End.

[Stellar]

Lol, nicely said BurnSide.

Anyway, whats sad is, these people keep claiming the end is comming, and then when something happens, like a world war, they say "HAHA, see? WE WERE RIGHT! The end WAS comming, and now its here! This is what we prophecised all along!" then the world war ends and, although many people died, it is not the end of the world, and you still hear people saying "THE END IS COMMING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! PREPARE! What? I never claimed that that World War was the end of the world! I just claimed that it would be the beginning of the end times!"

[PsychicPenguin]

Have you actually spend a minute or two to take a look at the page?

I'm not talking about a prophecy. It's about the interpretation of John's writing. There is no God, angels, satans, or the end of the world involved!! THe author claimed that John refered to the Roman Empire. The main objection against the Nero theory is that the emperor was dead by the time John finished his writing. However it is not a problem, because it is not a prophecy, but a political critic against the emperor Domitian.

[stillcrazy]

Wild-Eyes, your original post is very good. It seems that many who follow christian teaching really do not understand what is in the bible. Of course that can also apply to politics and a host of other areas. But it was very well written and thought out. And to the best of my limited knowledge of the subject, correct.

Edited by ME. I removed part of the original post as I felt it would be better to discuss the issue with the powers that be, instead of making it public. Sorry for the error.

Edited July 18, 2004 by stillcrazy

[Stellar]

Have you actually spend a minute or two to take a look at the page?

I'm not talking about a prophecy. It's about the interpretation of John's writing. There is no God, angels, satans, or the end of the world involved!! THe author claimed that John refered to the Roman Empire. The main objection against the Nero theory is that the emperor was dead by the time John finished his writing. However it is not a problem, because it is not a prophecy, but a political critic against the emperor Domitian.

We werent talking about what you posted.

[Wild-Eyes]

I think the Nero theory is plausible. Most Old Testament prophets referred to people and things that were in their very lifespan, and the letters in the New Testament referred to things that the recievers were experiencing in person. Therefore it makes perfect, plausbile sense that Revelations was doing the same thing. Heck, people don't realize that literary pieces such as The Wizard of Oz were satires or that the founder of the Mormons was trying to create a political utopia that was better than the contemporary United States government.

As for the reality of the prophecy, it's not something I care to touch on one way or another. I merely think of it like this: no one will know when the end of days is, until it has passed, and so until it does pass (no matter what the cause or means), no one can say a darned thing about it.

In other words, I think it's pretty pointless to talk about something that won't happen until it happens. It's like waiting for a fish to bite in a dry riverbed while blindfolded.

[danielson]

Posted: Jul 14 2004, 01:22 AM by Wild-Eyes

And what is an anti-Christ? Anyone who doesn't believe in Christ, or speaks out against him. The world is filled with millions of them.

Sorry, that is incorrect 'Anti' is a latin word which actually means 'instead of'. So the 'Anti-christ' means the next best thing to Christ, like a stand-in. It does'nt mean someone who is opposed to Christ, or the opposite of Christ. This is a common misconception. Maybe you should get your facts straight before critising other peoples points of view.

[Asterix]

Sorry, that is incorrect 'Anti' is a latin word which actually means 'instead of'. So the 'Anti-christ' means the next best thing to Christ, like a stand-in.

Hmm...That doesn't sound right. I couldn't find English-latin dictionary (searching bit hastily, I admit) but in dictionary.com it's stated clearly that:

anti-=Opposite: antimere.

Opposing; against: antiapartheid.

Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.

Destroying: antiaircraft.

Take the last one for example; antiaircraft means "against aircraft", no "stand in, replacement for aircraft"

Isn't that so?