aa5874

I wrote that in the NT Jesus was a STORY of the anti-christ.

In the NT STORY, Jesus claimed he was Christ, the Jews rejected him as a blasphemer and caused him to be executed.

In the NT STORY, Jesus was the anti-Christ to the JEWS.

Davka

If you follow the link in the OP, you will find a page with a number of links purporting to "prove" the identity of the antichrist. Most of them are Word documents "proving" that Obama is the antichrist. Also among them is this little gem:

Those Hebrew letters are supposed to read "Barack Hussein Obama." It took me a while to figure it out, and I had to spell it out to my wife, who was raised in Israel and is 100% fluent in Hebrew. The attempted transliteration is so bad that it takes a native English speaker to see what they're trying to spell.

stephan huller

mountainman

I must be really bored to continue arguing with someone who thinks that oxygen was invented in the fourth century but ...

Marcus is identified not only identified as an Antichrist/Satanic figure by Irenaeus but that passage I cited immediately after it, Irenaeus cites 'the presbyter' as his source (Hill and other think this is Polycarp).

The number of people who identify Marcus as the Antichrist/Satanic figure includes Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius.

The number of people who identify Marcion as the Antichrist/Satanic figure includes:

Polycarp, Irenaeus (who cites the story), Tertullian and everyone else who cites that first story.

BUT the fact that there is no such a thing as the antichrist (it is just an inversion or demonizing of the traditional Jewish expectation for a 'substantial' messiah, someone who actually does something of note in this world) to argue that Arius is 'more corroborated' than Marcus or Marcion is just ridiculous.

It just so happens that more information comes from the fourth century than the second.

Davka

These descriptions are given in 1 and 2 John:

This looks like a deliberate slap at Gnostic Christianity, which held that Jesus was a spirit rather than a flesh-and-blood man. That would place the books in question in the 2nd century C.E.

Then there's this verse:

. . . which looks more like a slap at the Jews who rejected the idea that Jesus was Messiah. This, too, puts the book in the 2nd century at the latest. So the idea of "antichrist" would appear to have emerged fairly early on.

Chili

. . . or, Pete, to be reborn from below instead of above is the anti-christ and that is why the Jews were right when they denied Jesus as the Christ in Matthew and Mark. The wording itself may even be different in Luke and John to make this difference known and for sure, if Christ is alive the anti-christ will also be alive.

Toto

Modern politics is off topic here, especially the batshit insane idea that the current president of the US is a Muslim anti-Christ born in Kenya. I suspect that Littlejohn did not realize the contents of his link.

But the ideas of Abelard Reuclin are almost equally insane.

Littlejohn

"..I suspect that Littlejohn did not realize the contents of his link..."

I understood that the one of Davka was an attempt to move into policy the debate. Incidentally I am not even agree on the opinion which he gives of Obama, who I esteem as one of the best U.S. presidents, at least from a century till today, regardless of its religious sympathies.

"..But the ideas of Abelard Reuclin are almost equally insane..."

I think in all this there is a misunderstanding, perhaps even because I have been not quite clear with regard to the one I written.

When I said that thanks to Abelard Reuchlin (or whatever you call he in reality) I was able to have confirmation about the figure of emperor responsible for the birth, initial growth and the 'rip-roaring' spreading of Catholic Christianity (impossible to get it without crucial collaboration of the imperial government) I did not mean say that I shared the results that had reached Reuchlin, which I find totally wrongs, though, in a certain sense, he had started with the 'just foot'.

In practice, I wanted to say that he, to support his thesis (without doubt controversial) has cited data that I found absolutely punctuals and that such data also have not appeared in any known source of data till today! .. Ergo, the jew Reuchlin certainly must have drawn it from an oral tradition, parallel to the main flow (or Orthodox) of the Judaism of Diaspora (*), whose ancient precursors were eyewitnesses not only of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth on the 'scene' of history, but also of the dynamic through which Catholic-Christianity got life and form!

Of course, all this is a reply also to the intrinsic relief to what posted by 'mountainman' ...


Greetings

________________________________

Note:

(*) - Another writer and novelist of Jewish origin that, I believe, has drawn from another oral tradition, absolutely alien to that of Orthodox Judaism, he is Marek Halter, author by the novel 'Sarah'.

Littlejohn

.

mountainman

Thanks for your patience stephan. The OP that I am exploring is the question "What is [an] antichrist?". We may have been talking past each other. Perhaps I should have spelt this out earlier but my argument is as follows:

The Scriptural Testimony

1) John - The words antichrist and antichrists appear four times in the First and Second Epistle of John (King James Version) .

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18)

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 )

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 4:3 )

"For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

2) Paul and Revelations - The OP may purposefullu pass over the related material in Paul and Revelations. While Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians talks about the "Man of Sin" and Revelations talks about various beasts, neither explicitly use the term antichrist.

It is signicant that the author of John stresses the importance of the explicit denial of the belief that Jesus came in the flesh. In writing that the antichrist would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." the author of John indirectly implies that the term antichrist is also to be applied to those who would deny that Jesus had any historical existence. These are elsewhere referred to as the Docetae or the Docetics.


So to be clear, I am attempting to gather up all the literary references to "antichrist". I am purposefully not examining the Pauline "Man of Sin" ideas or the Revelations "Beast" ideas --- I am only seeking expicit references to that word which appears in John's writing called "antichrist".



The "Early Church" Testimony (about John's antichrist)

Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) warned the Philippians that everyone
"who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist."

Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (Lightfoot translation)

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist:
and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil;
and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say
that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.

So we have the reference from Polycamp above.

I your response below I think you are retruning citations not just for the (Johns) "antichrist", but also for references to the Pauline material (the Man of Sin,) which you are refering to the "Satanic Figure" (below) and Revelations.

As a result I think many of your citations below are not applicable to the appearance (only) of the specific term "antichrist" in the The "Early Church" Testimony.

Can you confirm this is so?

Could you re-parse the above only for the specific appearance of the term "antichrist". Thanks.


BUT the fact that there is no such a thing as the antichrist woud not have compelled the author of John to coin the term. Unless of course the author of John simply fabricated a false set of claims. We may assume it was coined and placed by the author of John as an important message for three separate groups of people:

(1) The Jews - who would equate Christ and the antiChrist.

(2) The Christians - who would be henceforth on a vigilant lookout for the sudden or gradual appearance of "antichrist", and

(3) The Gentiles - and particularly the Graeco-Romans who read Greek. Who was the "Antichrist" with respect to these Gentiles if not some sort of "inbuilt bogeyman to be brought out and cited if you were so inclined to deny that Christ had "appeared in the flesh"? A modern way of saying "appeared in the flesh" is saying "appeared in historical life".


I am interested how the word was used and appled in antiquity by and against these three groups of people. We must not forget the Greek Gentiles to whom the NT -- but here specifically John --- was written in the Greek language.

We must also not forget that the gentiles were suddenly categorised as "pagans" at the Council of Nicaea, and actually outnumbered Constantine's christian faction by perhaps more than a 90% dominance.

Who was the antichrist to the "pagans" but a rod for their back and an inbuilt heresy inflictable by the orthodox on the gnostics.


For the moment let's just establish an index of mention for the explicit mention of this term - the Johanine "antichrist" in the literature up to Eusebius. For the record, here are Eusebius citations ....

The one and only early researcher of "Christian Church History" makes several vague references in his "Church History" to "Antichrist". In Book 3 at Chapter XVIII - "The Apostle John and the Apocalypse", and in Book 5 . Chapter VIII. "The Statements of Irenaeus in Regard to the Divine Scriptures" Eusebius makes vague allusions to antichrist. In Book 6 - "Chapter VII. The Writer, Judas" Eusebius makes a further mention of "the coming of Antichrist".

mountainman

But in the NT STORY, Jesus could not have been the antichrist to the GENTILES.
The NT STORY must have been written after the Christ character karked it.
The NT STORY must have been written in GREEK for the GREEK gentiles and Hellenised Jews.


The Graeco-Roman audience of the NT Story was "Gentile" (or "Pagan" after Nicaea).

At Nicaea, Arius is called the antichrist by three separate orthodox christians.
Arius may have denied that Jesus appeared in the flesh.
Arius may have denied that Jesus appeared in history ....


Perhaps Christ and antiChrist were invented together as a weapon against disbelief in the HJ?
The way I see the analysis is by looking at three separate groups (from above).

(1) The Jews - who would equate Christ and the antiChrist.

(2) The Christians - who would be henceforth on a vigilant lookout for the sudden or gradual appearance of "antichrist", and act accordingly (action seems to have been taken at Nicaea with Arius)

(3) The Gentiles - and particularly the Graeco-Romans who read Greek. Who was the "Antichrist" with respect to these Gentiles if not some sort of "inbuilt bogeyman to be brought out and cited if you were so inclined to deny that Christ had "appeared in the flesh"? A modern way of saying "appeared in the flesh" is saying "appeared in historical life".

Chili

Notice the plural, please.

Quote:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 )

It is not secret that when you get the son you get the father for the bird that built its nest is hatched therein.

Quote:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 4:3 )

This happened in Jn.6:66 where they denied that Jesus was the bread of life and walked away from him while in fact the bells must be ringing when these words are spoken = no bells = no transformation.

Quote:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

These are those who call it "consubstabtiation" instead of "transubstantiation" and so confirm that they celebrate the denial that Christ has come into the flesh and continue to do so 'in the flesh' and these are those who so are anti-christ. This then is how I juxtapose Christ and anti-christ in the flesh, today, yesterday and forever.