Littlejohn

Beyond the amenity 'coded' by this pleasant individual, it must be said, however incredible such a thing may seem, that it is highly likely that the Antichrist was just Jesus of Nazareth! ... Antichrist because it was given to him the place and the role that had previously occupied the 'Christ' of Judeo-Christian church of Antioch: ie Yehochanan ben Yehudah, a native of Gamla.


Littlejohn

.

stephan huller

I would argue instead that if you read the earliest accounts of the 'antichrist' you will see that all it is little more than an effort to demonize the original Jewish/Christian messianic expectation that was still ruminating in the heresies (which are always inevitably closer to Judaism in spirit). Expecting a secular Jewish king who is other than Jesus and the fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic expectation the way the Jews always envision the anointed one would appear in the world? Then you partake of the Antichrist.

aa5874

The Jesus character as portrayed in the NT Canon was indeed a story of the anti-christ.


Mt 24:5 - Mt 24:23 - In the NT stories Jesus was rejected by the Jews since he was not the expected Christ, he was the blaspheming anti-christ of the Jews.

mountainman

Check the thread The Quest for the Historical AntiChrist.

The first person in ancient history to have been specifically attributed
with this specific term [ie: the AntiChrist] - from more than one independent source is
- surprise ! surprise ! surprise ! -
the Antichrist

Arius of Alexandria..

Master heretic.
Abominable author.
An Ares.
An AntiChristian.

Constantine discloses the following about Arius ...

He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties
He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books]
He wrote books which deceived and destroyed

He introduced a belief of unbelief.
He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign
He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God]
He was twice wretched

He reproached the church
He grieved the church
He wounded he church
He pained the church
He demoted Jesus
He dared to circumscribe Jesus
He undermined the (orthodox) truth
He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses
He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable
He questioned the presence of Jesus
He questioned the activity of Jesus
He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus
He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus
He thought that there something else outside of Jesus
He denied the infiniteness of Jesus
He did not conclude that God is present in Christ
He had no faith in Christ
He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ
He had little piety toward Christ
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus
He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus
He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church
He was barred publicly from God’s church.

He was possibly poisoned c.336 CE in the City of Constantine.
He probably had a number of imperial contracts out on his head.

stephan huller

mountainman

Marcion was identified as the Antichrist long before Arius. Was sex invented in the fourth century too? What about running water? This obsession with the fourth century is not healthy.

Christianity was not invented in the fourth century, only one specific formulation of Christianity was.

Seriously, claiming the first Antichrist comes from that period is deranged. The glee associated with naming Arius - wow.

It's like claiming that you've uncovered the first person in the world to ever be called an 'asshole' by someone or that you can prove that your barber was the guy who made up the story about Rod Stewart going to the hospital and having twenty ounces of sperm taken from his stomach.

Making the claim that Arius 'is' the 'original Antichrist' is crazy.

The heretic Marcus is identified by Irenaeus as a precursor of the Antichrist (AH i.13.1). Nero. Marcion. The list goes on and on. I think there are other texts from memory too like the Apocalypse of Elijah.

Chili

Note that you found this in Matthew who was the anti-Christ as the brother of Jesus who was raised but did not ascend onto heaven (cf Luke and John's Jesus). This then is why Paul speaks of "a different Gospel" than he preached as well.

Chili

In the same way as Christ was no 'mere man' so can the anti-christ be no 'mere man' but if Christ is the illumination of our mind so will the anit-christ be the perversion of our mind.

Littlejohn

"..expectation the way the Jews always envision the anointed one would appear in the world?.."

No, in the discourse of the Antichrist, in my view, has nothing to do the traditional messianic vision of the Jewish people, nor, incidentally, has nothing to do the 'Judeo-Christianity' with the 'Catholic-Christianity', as the only true thing in common between the two whorships was the messianic 'model' that founders of Catholic-Christianity copied from the world of 'Judeo-Christianity', a cult fundamentally different from the Catholic worship, because it was closely 'pro-Jewish' ( his message was addressed only to Judaism and, in particular, to the world of messianic-zealot rebellion), unlike to the Catholic one, which, instead, in addition to presenting aspects decidedly heathens was also anti-Semitic!. The Catholic-Christian cult, in fact, was not addressed to the Jewish world, as impossible to convert, but towards all other subjects of the empire, which religion was essentially heathen.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Uhmmm .... If you do not leave in a 'corner' the dogma of non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I doubt that you will achieve some concrete result ...

You are referring to the Jesus of 'faith', ie Jesus that you have 'extracted' from the New Testament literature: simply, however, is not that one historical Jesus, but only a 'simulacrum' of the real Jesus, misrepresented and manipulated up to completely distort his historical profile!

As for you is hard to believe, however there was a period (which lasted about a year or a little more) in which were the same Jews of Jerusalem to acclaim Jesus as the 'Messiah the awaited one'!..

The episode of 'Palm Sunday', reported in the canonical gospels, is substantially TRUE, except that the environmental and time contexts were NOT those who have wanted to do believe the forger evangelists, but very differents! (the real action always took place in Jerusalem, but more than 30 years after the period defined by the evangelists!)

Origen, in quoting Josephus, says that the latter does NOT BELIEVED that Jesus was the 'Messiah' expected (the exact opposite of what appears in the 'Testimonium Flavianum'!). Surely, Origen does NOT was reading the books by Joseph that today we read of, but, probably, their integral version, since what he said about Josephus does not appear in any known copie of his works!

It's so obvious that if Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, it means that someone else, instead, believed it, and this 'someone else' could only have been the crowd of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Palm Sunday), in delirium for the arrival in town of Jesus the 'Galilean' and his small army of about 600-800 young armed galileans. (We are in the middle of the first Jewish War, between the 68-69 about)

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

I have said and repeated a thousand times that although Christians must to the work of an emperor the born of Catholic-Christianity, however this emperor was not Constantine, as this happened long before he was born!

It is thanks to the work of a Hebrew writer-journalist, namely Abelard Reuchlin (a nickname), that I was able to confirm what I had imagined, about the emperor of which above. You deals of the book "The true authorship of the New Testament"

Another confirmation I had reading Irenaeus. (confirmation in 'indirect' way)


Greetings

Littlejohn
.