Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-12-2009, 11:29 PM

Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession By Robert C. Fuller

Quote:

Extract of Google Book overview

The Antichrist, though mentioned a mere four times in the Bible, and then only obscurely, has exercised a tight hold on popular imagination throughout history. This has been particularly true in the U.S., says author Robert C. Fuller, where Americans have tended to view our nation as uniquely blessed by God--a belief that leaves us especially prone to demonizing our enemies. In Naming the Antichrist, Fuller takes us on a fascinating journey through the dark side of the American religious psyche, from the earliest American colonists right up to contemporary fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey.

.....

Extract of Editorial Review - Kirkus Reviews Copyright (c) VNU Business Media, Inc.

An intelligent history of how Americans have tended to see the world as the battleground between absolute good and absolute evil. The Antichrist, states Fuller (Religious Studies/Bradley Univ.; Alternate Medicine and American Religious Life, 1989) is held to be the incarnation of ultimate evil, the enemy of Christ who will appear in the final chapter of history to lead the forces of Satan against ...
More the forces of God, until he is finally vanquished by Christ at the dawn of the long-awaited millennium. Guiding us briskly through the centuries, Fuller traces this notion from its origins in the Bible through the Protestant Reformation, which saw the pope as Antichrist, and the English Civil War, in which both sides used Antichrist rhetoric.

mountainman · 10-13-2009, 05:07 PM

"who is the antichrist" .... Results 1 - 100 of about 36,600,000 for "who is the antichrist". (0.39 seconds)

Toto · 10-13-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"who is the antichrist" .... Results 1 - 100 of about 36,600,000 for "who is the antichrist". (0.39 seconds)

How many of these websites devoted to unmasking the antichrist would you consider to be sane?

aa5874 · 10-13-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea

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

Christ of the NT was the anti-christ.

1.The Christ of the Jews was expected to be physical, Christ of the NT was mythological or spiritual.

2. The Christ of the Jews was expected to hate, and kill Romans or those who oppressed them, but the Christ of the NT told the Jews to love those who hate them.

3. The Christ of the Jews was expected to fight and kill to protect the Jews but the Christ of the NT CURSED the Jews and spoke to them in parables so that they could die in their sins.

4. The Christ of the NT was not expected to be a blasphemer, however the Christ of the NT was executed for blasphemy.

5.The Christ of the Jews was expected to obey the Laws of Moses, but the Christ of the NT came to abolish the Law according to the Church.

Christ of the NT was the anti-Christ.

mountainman · 10-14-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"who is the antichrist" .... Results 1 - 100 of about 36,600,000 for "who is the antichrist". (0.39 seconds)

How many of these websites devoted to unmasking the antichrist would you consider to be sane?

Where do they all source their inspiration if not the "Bible"?

The New Testament or the Old Testament or a MishMash? I do not deal in "prophecy" and you know my chronology is logically restricted to the period of "christian origins" that covers the first 4 centuries, until the closure of the NT canon.

A great deal of acadmic scholarship has been applied to the quest for the historical christ. The OP here is asking whether the same calibre of scholarship has been -- or has yet to be -- applied to the quest for the historical antichrist. We have all been through the arguments as to historicity of jesus ad nauseaum. How about changing the focus, just for one thread and a few moments, to examination of the first appearances of evidence in the field of history for anyone called the antichrist.

I am surprised that noone has yet dragged out Tertullian against Marcion for example.

mountainman · 10-14-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christ of the NT was the anti-christ.

Aside from the tangential fact that the Apostle Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that two bosons cannot occupy the same space at once, the OP here seeks to find literary or monumental evidence for the earliest attestations that some historical figure was awarded -- not the "Christ" medals like the popes and bishops award each other - but the fully blown outworldly "Antichrist Medal".

According to the new testament records christ had appeared and disappeared a long time before the Gospel authors wrote about the appearance of the antichrist. So we are looking for the historical appearance of the antichrist sometime after the gospels and acts were fabricated. I am no good with conventional chronology, but I'd guess we could start looking around after the middle of the second century.

Toto · 10-15-2009, 01:02 AM

You might as well ask about the historical Lucifer.

The Historical Jesus is the presumed inspiration for the Christian religion. The antichrist is a term of abuse applied to some enemies of the church, which was elevated to cult status by some American loonies.

What is your point here?

mountainman · 10-15-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You might as well ask about the historical Lucifer.

Lucifer is not named in the new testament.
The antichrist is mentioned in the new testament.

Quote:

WIKI

LUCIFER

In the New Testament the Adversary has many names, but "Lucifer" is not among them. He is called "Satan" (Matt. 4:10; Mark 1:13, 4:15; Luke 10:18), "devil" (Matt. 4:1), "adversary" (1. Peter 5:8, ἀντίδικος; 1. Tim. 5:14, ἀντικείμενος), "enemy" (Matt. 13:39), "accuser" (Rev. 12:10), "old serpent" (Rev. 20:2), "great dragon" (Rev. 12:9), Beelzebub (Matt. 10:25, 12:24), and Belial (comp. Samael). In Luke 10:18, John 12:31, 2. Cor. 6:16, and Rev. 12:9 the fall of Satan is mentioned. The devil is regarded as the author of all evil (Luke 10:19; Acts 5:3; 2. Cor. 11:3; Ephes. 2:2), who beguiled Eve (2. Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). Satan brought death itself into the world (Heb. 2:13), being ever the tempter (1. Cor. 7:5; 1. Thess. 3:5; 1. Peter 5:8), even as he tempted Jesus (Matt. 4). The Christian demonology and belief in the devil dominated subsequent periods.[6] However, though the New Testament includes the conception that Satan fell from heaven with the velocity of lightning (Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:7-10), [7] it nowhere applies the name Lucifer to him.

ANTICHRIST
The words antichrist and antichrists appear four times in the First and Second Epistle of John.[5][6][7][8] The word is not capitalized in most translations of the Bible, including the original King James Version. 1 John chapter 2 refers to many antichrists present at the time while warning of one Antichrist that is coming.[9] The "many antichrists" belong to the same spirit as that of the one Antichrist.[7][9] John wrote that such antichrists deny "that Jesus is the Christ", "the Father and the Son", and would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." Likewise, the one Antichrist denies the Father and the Son.[6]

Quote:

The Historical Jesus is the presumed inspiration for the Christian religion.

I am very well aware of that, but that is not the issue at all here.
I seek the first unambiguous appearance of references to an historical Antichrist in ancient history.

Quote:

The antichrist is a term of abuse applied to some enemies of the church, which was elevated to cult status by some American loonies.

What is your point here?

The quest for the appearance of the antichrist, according to the usual renditions of the term tantamounts to the appearance of a person or persons who would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." . The OP asks the question when did this first happen in history in any clearly citable sense? I have cited evidence from the fourth century by which it may be inferred that Athanasius at least thought it was expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which he was convinced that Arius of Alexandria was the harbinger of the antichrist. I am reasonably sure that a number of other christian authors of the 4th and 5th century make reference to Arius as to be associated with the "New Testament Term Antichrist". Can you or anyone else cite anything earlier in the usual fashion of BC&H?

aa5874 · 10-15-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Christ of the NT was the anti-christ.

Aside from the tangential fact that the Apostle Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that two bosons cannot occupy the same space at once, the OP here seeks to find literary or monumental evidence for the earliest attestations that some historical figure was awarded -- not the "Christ" medals like the popes and bishops award each other - but the fully blown outworldly "Antichrist Medal".

According to the new testament records christ had appeared and disappeared a long time before the Gospel authors wrote about the appearance of the antichrist. So we are looking for the historical appearance of the antichrist sometime after the gospels and acts were fabricated. I am no good with conventional chronology, but I'd guess we could start looking around after the middle of the second century.

But, wasn't a Pope or Popes of Rome declared to be the anti-Christ. I can't remember if those Popes was awarded medals.

mountainman · 10-15-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, wasn't a Pope or Popes of Rome declared to be the anti-Christ.

Hi aa5874,

You may be thinking of the accusations of 16th century Reformationists, or indeed possibly of the series of well known 14th and 15th century anti-popes. But antipopes and antichrists are different animals, and in any event all of these dont appear until late in the historical record.

The quest for the historical antichrist aims to find the very earliest reference to declarations which associate the antichrist with an historical figure, who of course, would have typically callously denied that Jesus had turned up in his fleshy birthday suit. Tertullian apparently wants to award an antichrist medal to Marcion, but I can find no other author in antiquity who agrees with Tertullian that Marcion was to be considered as an antichrist. At the end of the day it appears that the earliest historically cited appearance of the antichrist is with Arius of Alexandria, at the time the Christian religion was first made the very favored centralised registered state religion c.325 CE at the sharp point of Constantine's sword.

The antichrist is such an outlandish idea that I wonder why the authors of the NT included such a concept in the narrative. I suspect it was a method of planting a curse. The curse being against those who are foolish enough to question the historical existence of the key figure of christ in the NT. I dont seem to be able to find an antibuddha in the Buddhist literature. I suspect therefore that the authors of the NT knew full well there were people who were not going to buy their story about the water-walking death-defying Logos-God-Jesus. Therefore they planted a common pagan curse in the narrative about disbelievers of the historical jesus. NOTE: I think it is reasonable to take as completely equivalent the two statements (a) the antichristian people would "not confess Jesus came in the flesh." and (b) the antichristian people would "not confess Jesus appeared in history."

10-13-2009, 05:07 PM	#12
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	damnatio memorae "who is the antichrist" .... Results 1 - 100 of about 36,600,000 for "who is the antichrist". (0.39 seconds)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2009, 01:02 AM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You might as well ask about the historical Lucifer. The Historical Jesus is the presumed inspiration for the Christian religion. The antichrist is a term of abuse applied to some enemies of the church, which was elevated to cult status by some American loonies. What is your point here?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.