mountainman

And ever since [the Council of Nicaea] has Arius's error
been reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary,
being known as Christ's foe,
and harbinger of Antichrist.

The Orthodox "Father" Athanasius
Athanasius' "Discourses"

The AntichristArius of Alexandria appears as the first recorded heretic to have been awarded the "AntiChrist Medal". The Quest for the Historical Anti-Christ seems to start at the council of Nicaea. I wonder if the quest for an historical christ also starts at the council of Nicaea. Quantum physics suggests that out of the void arises both a particle along with its own anti-particle. Basic Spock.

Sea

Considering most of the "antichrist" ideas are a misinterpretation of Daniel, the historical antichrist is already identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

mountainman

Born c. 215 BC; died 164 BC, which in most peoples books is at least slightly before the authorship of the New Christian Testament obviously scratches Antiochus IV Epiphanes out of the race for the "Historical Antichrist". We seek an historical antichrist cited after the new testament was assembled. How can you possibly consider an antichrist to have existed before the new testament delivered the Christ to the Troops?

DCHindley

The Greek preposition ANTI (anti-) means

1. properly, it seems to have signified over against, opposite to, before, in a local sense ... Hence,

2. indicating exchange, succession, for, instead of, in place of (something).
a. universally, instead of ...
b. of that for which anything is given, received, endured ... Then
c. of recompense ...
d. of the cause ...
e. of succession to the place of another ...

3. As a prefix, it denotes
a. opposite, over against ...
b. the mutual efficiency of two ...
c. requital ...
d. hostile opposition ...

In the NT, the word ANTICRISTOS is only found in 1 & 2 John (once even in the plural). It there does not seem to refer to a single individual, but to those who oppose correct doctrine.

Athanasius seems to feel that Arius' understanding of Christ was opposed to the "true" understanding of what Christ should be, and that such an opinion, if tolerated along with the majority view, was a harbinger (definition being "announce: foreshadow or presage") of what could happen if someone (I presume an emperor like Maximin) might oppose Christ entirely, or at least seek to replace the correct understanding with another (that of Arius).

DCH

Newfie

Perhaps Sea is referring to the likelihood that Daniel had Antiochus IV Epiphanes in mind as his "abomination" and that the new testament writers and later Christians then co-oped Daniel's prophecy to refer to antichrists. :huh:

mountainman

Sorry I do not buy one skerrick of any of this prophecy handwaving.
The OP is dealing with the ancient history of the earliest Antichrist.
Christ gets promoted in the new testament.
The Antichrist gets mentioned in the NT.

We appear to be handicapped in that we do not know
exactly when the new testament was forged.

Our favorite academics conjecture perhaps the 2nd century.
Apostolic authorship in the 1st century is DisneyLand.
The NT becomes exceedingly concrete in the 4th century.
Pick a century, any century 1, 2, 3 or 4 ....

Who is the first person in recorded history to attract
the label of the Antichrist in a new testament manner?

The evidence suggests that this person is Arius of Alexandria.
The father of christian orthodoxy Athanasius makes it clear that
this Arius is "Christ's foe" with effect from the council of Nicaea.



The Foe of Christ appears c.325 CE as Arius.
And Arius appears to be described as a satirist.



The quest for the earliest historical Christ and the quest for the earliest historical antichrist may in fact be highly related in a contraversial political manner.

mountainman

Thanks DCH.

Athanasius takes great pains to associate the writing style of Arius with the writing style of a well known greek satirist Sotades. Athanasius' feeling of opposition to the writings of Arius appear rather strong ....

And shall not all human kind at Arius’s blasphemies
be struck speechless, and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them
or seeing their author?

It would appear that the father of orthodoxy Athanasius is saying that antichristian properties are to be found in satires written against Christ. Now we could be totally gullible and believe that every single person at that time decided to convert to the Galilaean religion at once, including those who satired the religion. But I suggest to you and everyone else that there is to be naturally expected a resistance to this new and strange religion of the emperor's sword in the fourth century, and the resistance was from non christians.

Here's a question: Is the Antichrist a christian?
or "How can someone called an anti-christian
be also called a christian in a political sense"?

Sea

Indeed. It is an anachronism, but not one of my making.

mountainman

We must learn to look past the obviously fraudulent anachronisms and ask simple straightforward historical questions, such as who else in the antiquity of the very common era made a literary reference associating an existing historical person with the "Antichrist"?


Here is a second source, via Socrates Scholasticus:

The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.

To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.

Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain `the bond of unity and peace,' it becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the condition of things among each of us, in order that `if one member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other, or rejoice together.'

Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless and anti-christian men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. I wished indeed to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible the evil might be confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth into other districts and contaminate the ears of some of the simple.


--- Socrates Scholasticus, E-History Book 1, Chapter VI.
Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

Unless I am missing something quite obvious, it would appear that the quest for the first historical Antichrist is indeed a successful historical quest. The argument that the first historical antichrist to appear on planet earth was Arius of Alexandria appears to be emminently supported by the original texts and documents.

We might generalise here and note that the antichrist is also associated with the general denial that Jesus existed. To deny that Jesus had appeared "in the flesh" was the same thing as denying that Jesus has appeared "in history".

Now some of you may think that the idea that people may have denied the existence of the historical christ in the period of early christianity is an untenable idea. I can sympathise with people who subscribe to these notions out of some sort of sense of "christian responsibility". The textual and documentary evidence suggests that Antichristian sentiment was present at the council of Nicaea.

storytime

Or.. the body of unbelievers in the Jews as a whole[one] body called anti-Christ - against the idol. (those who did not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh walking among them)

The apostles were dealing with Jews who did not believe while trying to convince non-Jews that Jesus was the Christ who was to come.