14 Jul '09 02:34>
For perspective: anti christ is an innacurate term. a better translation would be the "instead of" christ
Originally posted by galveston75Certainly ! It is an easy assumption to make that the Great God Satan has read this book of revelation and sees how Satan loses in the end. Given that, Satan would logically want to prevent the rise of this anti-christ person and god would work for the rise of this anti-christ. This could be a CIA plot.
Interesting but are you saying that God had something to do with the antichrist or ones opposing him coming into existance?
Originally posted by galveston75Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Revelations than me can help, but I think it is generally thought that the Roman emperor Nero was considered by early christians (and so the New Testament) to be the anti-Christ, due to the persecutions following the great fire of rome in AD64.
2 John: 7 says: Many decievers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deciever and antichrist.
( This shows more then one. )
When would they be doing this?
1 John 4:3 says: Every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus, does not originate with God. Futhermore, this is the an ...[text shortened]... his position. Also does not execpt his Kingdom and would mistreat him or any of his followers.
Originally posted by galveston75====================
2 John: 7 says: Many decievers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deciever and antichrist.
( This shows more then one. )
When would they be doing this?
1 John 4:3 says: Every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus, does not originate with God. Futhermore, this is the an his position. Also does not execpt his Kingdom and would mistreat him or any of his followers.
Originally posted by jaywillThe Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate - jaywill
In principle an antichrist belief is any belief that denies some aspect of what Jesus Christ is.
To teach that Jesus is not God incarnate is definitely an antichrist teaching.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate.
Some of the ancients denied that Christ was a real man. They believed He was ...[text shortened]... n the flesh, but because they denied that Jesus was God come in the flesh [b](John 1:1,14).[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think I said that in principle, an antichrist doctrine is to deny ANY ASPECT of what Christ IS as revealed in the word of God.
The Jehovah's Witnesses teach an antichrist doctrine by denying that Christ is God incarnate - jaywill
how is that? Christ literally means anointed one, not God incarnate!
Originally posted by jaywillno Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
I think I said that in principle, an antichrist doctrine is to deny ANY ASPECT of what Christ IS as revealed in the word of God.
One aspect of who Christ is is that He is a Man. If you teach as some did that Christ is not a man, that denies AN apsect of what Christ is, as revealed in the Bible. It is an antichrist teaching.
Another aspect of what ld not deny.
To deny an aspect because of our preferences is to teach an antichrist teaching.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie================================
no Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
Originally posted by jaywillno, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it? we accept all the other attributes? Christ was the messiah, Christ is our redeemer, Christ was born of a virgin, Christ is our high priest etc etc etc but this thing we cannot accept, on the basis of our scriptural understanding and so we are anti christ? i don't think so!
[b]================================
no Jaywill it is not the same thing as denying that Christ is God incarnate, for these other attributes can readily be discerned from scripture, that Christ is God incarnate, cannot.
======================================
It is not that it cannot be discerned. It may be that one refuses to believe.
...[text shortened]... ching.
Instead of Him being what the Bible says you want to teach that He is SOMETHING ELSE.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=========================
no, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it? we accept all the other attributes? Christ was the messiah, Christ is our redeemer, Christ was born of a virgin, Christ is our high priest etc etc etc but this thing we cannot accept, on the basis of our scriptural understanding and so we are anti christ? i don't think so!
Originally posted by jaywillyes but this shows what nonsense it is, for we are not substituting anything else! no aspect, no attribute. Christ was the son of God, the Messiah, end of story. it is you people who have elevated him, through your adoration, to the same position as the Almighty, something which he himself never even dared to consider.
[b]=========================
no, its not a question of belief, its a question of what can be discerned. if the scriptures taught that Christ was God incarnate, why would we not accept it?
==================================
That is hard to answer. Maybe because someone does not want to submit to Christ as God.
Maybe because one ng. "Instead of THIS apsect of what Christ is, we decide to substitute something ELSE."[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI have no problem with Christ being a life giving Spirit, none whatsoever, it is a biblical teaching, but your argument Jay, and i say this sincerely, has as its basis a false premise, that the three are one and equal, therefore, that Christ himself never taught it, nor is it explicitly taught with any clarity in scripture, it cannot therefore be deemed to be anything remotely resembling an anti-Christ teaching. the most that you can state, with any certainty, is that it becomes the realms of theology, for its basis is in a conjecture, pure and utter!
The Bible says [b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Now suppose I am a Baptist minister and I think "But if I teach that Christ became the Spirit then someone may think I teach Modalism. They may accuse me of tampering with the seprated Persons Christ being one and the Holy Spirit being the Other. So I better say Christ did n efore deny some aspect of that Christ is revealed to be - you have an antichrist teaching.[/b]