Who is the AntiChrist?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes 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.

============================
yes 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.
==================================

We did not exalt Him. God exalted Him.

We should not rebel against God's exaltation of Christ. It is pride.

No sense of piety can substitute for obedience.

This is subtle rebellion that Russell and Arius taught. They staggered at the word - "How can the Word be God? The Word was with God. This must mean that the Word is another god. We will make this Word an archangel. "

Rebellion Robbie. Save yourself from it.

============================
yes 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.
r god. We will make this Word an archangel. "

Rebellion Robbie. Save yourself from it.[/b]

yes God exalted him to a 'superior position, to which every knee should bend', but he is still subject Jay my friend, even after his resurrection, therefore i suggest that you too, subject yourself under the mighty hand of God, and bring yourself into harmony with the headship principle, in that, the Head of Christ is God, the head of man is the Christ etc etc etc. are you rebelling against the principle Jaywill? by claiming that Christ has no head? that he is equal to God? that he is God incarnate? shame on you rebels!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes God exalted him to a 'superior position, to which every knee should bend', but he is still subject Jay my friend, even after his resurrection, therefore i suggest that you too, subject yourself under the mighty hand of God, and bring yourself into harmony with the headship principle, in that, the Head of Christ is God, the head of man is the Chri ...[text shortened]... Christ has no head? that he is equal to God? that he is God incarnate? shame on you rebels!

================================
yes God exalted him to a 'superior position, to which every knee should bend', but he is still subject Jay my friend, even after his resurrection, therefore i suggest that you too, subject yourself under the mighty hand of God, and bring yourself into harmony with the headship principle, in that, the Head of Christ is God, the head of man is the Christ etc etc etc. are you rebelling against the principle Jaywill? by claiming that Christ has no head? that he is equal to God? that he is God incarnate? shame on you rebels!
=====================================

This has nothing to do with it.


Christ being subject to the Father has nothing to do with it. It simply DOES NOT make the Word not God, nor the Word not became flesh.

It does not mean the last Adam did not become a life giving Spirit to impart Himself into man's being.

To truly come under God you first have to take God into your being.

You truly submit yourself to Him by letting Him come into you.

If God remains outside of you, it does not matter how much you fancy that you are under Him. He wants to enter into your spirit. And your Russellite teaching fights against receiving Christ as life.

Its rebellion Robbie. Save yourself from the rebellion and receive Christ into your heart.

There are many doctrinal contraversies in Christian history. But in some cases the argument over doctrine was not the real issue. The real issue was ambition for position. Someone didn't want to submit to someone else's organized position.

Doctorinal dispute will one day be shown to have been in many cases a side issue.

Someone thought he was smarter and needed his own following. So he taught something else to gain himself a following.

Probably behind many denominational doctrinal arguments their lies a battle over turf and having one's own following, ambition for leadership and position.

Doctrinal differences were in many cases a red herring.

Originally posted by jaywill
================================
yes God exalted him to a 'superior position, to which every knee should bend', but he is still subject Jay my friend, even after his resurrection, therefore i suggest that you too, subject yourself under the mighty hand of God, and bring yourself into harmony with the headship principle, in that, the Head of Christ i Its rebellion Robbie. Save yourself from the rebellion and receive Christ into your heart.[/b]

nothing to do with it? nothing to do with it? it is Gods arrangement my friend!

And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day - Jude 6


what was the problem with those ancient Angels who forsook their proper dwelling place, and ended up in eternal darkness and bonds in Tartarus, that right, they would not submit to Gods arrangement. Christ cannot be equal to God and be subject to him at the same time? can he? Christ cannot be with God and be him at the same time, can he?

but your sentiments are appreciated Jaywill, if anyone needs saving, its me!

To truly come under Jehovah's authority you must receive Christ into your heart.

When someone is telling you Christ is an angel, who is going to want to receive Him ?

Actually Robbie, the submission that you need you do not have. Do you know where it is? It is in Christ the Son and IS Christ the Son.


You receive Jesus, you receive the submission to God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nothing to do with it? nothing to do with it? it is Gods arrangement my friend!

And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day - Jude 6


what was the problem with those ancient Angels who forsook th ...[text shortened]... me time, can he?

but your sentiments are appreciated Jaywill, if anyone needs saving, its me!

When Jesus wanted to make it emphatic that the audience must receive Him He said that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood they had no life in them.

The message was emphatic. God has come as this man. You have to accept Him. You have to take Him into your heart.

The expression about eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have His life, was a strong way of teaching that they had to receive God become a man.

See John 6.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nothing to do with it? nothing to do with it? it is Gods arrangement my friend!

And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day - Jude 6


what was the problem with those ancient Angels who forsook th ...[text shortened]... me time, can he?

but your sentiments are appreciated Jaywill, if anyone needs saving, its me!

===========================
Christ cannot be with God and be him at the same time, can he?
==========================


"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD."

Are you going to exalt your REASON or are you going to believe the Bible?

Are you going to say that John 1:1 cannot be ?

Are you going to change it to make the WORD an archangel ?

"Lord I receive this word. Amen" That is how I want to react.

Then within the anointing confirms that it really is so. You know that God has entered into your being. His blood has cleansed you and made you justified before Him. And "the spirit is life because of righteousness". God's life enters into your innermost being.

This life that enters is knowing God. It is knowing Christ. It is not a force. It is a Person. Because of Him God is one in you. You know Him and you cannot detect any separation of Father, Son, and Spirit.

Having Christ within is really being under the authority of Jehovah.

Originally posted by jaywill
When Jesus wanted to make it emphatic that the audience must receive Him He said that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood they had no life in them.

The message was emphatic. God has come as this man. You have to accept Him. You have to take Him into your heart.

The expression about eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have His life, was a strong way of teaching that they had to receive God become a man.

See John 6.

mmm, i do not know how you can manage to make the correlation Jaywill between what Christ stated and how that makes him God in the guise of a man.

yes the speech was emphatic but it was a parallel with the passover celebration, the inauguration of a new covenant, for a kingdom, between Christ and his disciples. there is no mention, none that i am aware of that infers that he was God from this. i could be mistaken though, perhaps you can point it out?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================
Christ cannot be with God and be him at the same time, can he?
==========================


"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD. HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD."

Are you going to exalt your REASON or are you going to believe the Bible?

Are you going to say that John 1:1 cannot be ? ...[text shortened]... Spirit.

Having Christ within is really being under the authority of Jehovah.[/b]

you know what i think of that text based on the ancient and more accurate rendering of it in the sahidic coptic text, let me state it for you

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1

Literally, the Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word

you will notice the different use of the definite and indefinite articles (the) and (a)

thus the Coptic writers of the second to third centuries more accurately expressed the meaning of the scriptures, prior to the adoption of the trinity, grammatical arguments aside, they made a clear distinction between the God (God Almighty) and the word (Jesus Christ), the two are not synonymous, were never synonymous and will never be synonymous. this is not a product of reasoning, but a simple, candid and literal reading of the text.

now the question arises, that being the case, in what sense was the Word, Jesus Christ, with God, prior to his coming as man, and in what sense was he exalted after his resurrection. in other words, what is the meaning of 'a god'.

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.

Who cares who it is? The bottom line is that those who follow after those who claim to be Christ will be lead astray. In short, when Chrsit returns there will not be even a shadow of a doubt as to who he is at that time for anyone, or at least Biblical speaking.

The sad part is that the world is ripe for those looking for a man much in the same way that Christ came the first time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you know what i think of that text based on the ancient and more accurate rendering of it in the sahidic coptic text, let me state it for you

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1

Literally, the Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. An ...[text shortened]... t sense was he exalted after his resurrection. in other words, what is the meaning of 'a god'.

Let us say then for the sake of argument that John 1:1 is not clear. Not that I believe that or that all other Greek scholars agree with you. But for the moment we will assume that John 1:1 is obscure.

You still have a considerable amount of evidence that it is proper to understand that the Bible intends to portray that though this man, was sent by the Father, prayed to the Father, obeyed the Father, petitioned the Father, died for the sake of the Father, was raised by the Father, and exalted by the Father, He was still God manifest in the flesh.

And the net effect of Russell and Arius's doctrine is a whole series of clever but failing attempts to insert a HUMAN idea more to their liking then what the Bible reveals.

John 1:1,14 is not the only criteria that informs this doctrine.

For the Arian it is one down and fifty to go. And the accumulated effect is that the Arian has created what the Apostle Paul called "a system of error" (Eph. 4:14 - Darby, RcV)

And I would add that the pure word of God at times seems are problematic to traditional creedal thoughts of trinitarians also.

For the FULLNESS of the Godhead to dwell in Christ bodily as Colossians 1:19; 2:9 states might be considered not particularly friendly to trinatarianism.

This is not ONE THIRD of the fullness dwells in Christ. This is not 33.3333 % of the fullness dwells in Christ. This is ]ALL THE FULLNESS dwells in Christ.

Are we going to say "Amen" or are we going to twist it to something more to human preference?

Likewise, Isaiah 9:6 could be considered problematic to a creedal desire to maintain three SEPARATE persons in God. It steps on the trinitarian toes by stating that the Son given shall be called Eternal Father.

I know staunch evangelicals who immediately go to work to twist this passage. They say that that must be some OTHER Father beside the Father of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit of the New Testament.

They say "This must be the Father of creation."
Or "This must be the Father of Israel."
Or "This must be the Father of the age to come."
Or "This must be some other Father".

But the Bible has only one Divine and Eternal Father - God. So the Bible does not cut us any slack for our natural mind. And I don't care if it presents problems because Jesus was sent by the Father and prayed to the Father and was subject to the Father.

I refused to make the Eternal Father of Isaiah 9:6 some OTHER Father Who is Eternal. There is only ONE - the Father of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit Triune God.

My point is that the word of God steps on everyone's toes somewhere. The peace of Christ though passes everyman's understanding. And His peace should arbitrate in our hearts.

The life right of eternal life is to to them who receive Him. It is not to them who can explain Him.

Salvation is to everyone who believes into Him. It is not to everyone who can explain Him.

The command of Jesus in John 20 was to "Receive the Holy Spirit" It was not "Figure out the Holy Spirit".

When we receive Him the light from God illuminates our inward being.

===========================
now the question arises, that being the case, in what sense was the Word, Jesus Christ, with God, prior to his coming as man, and in what sense was he exalted after his resurrection. in other words, what is the meaning of 'a god'.
===============================

We have debated about this very much already.

My decision is to receive Jesus as my God. I will not make Jesus into an archangel. I will not say that He is no longer a man. I will not say that He did not physically rise. And I will not say that there is no teaching of God the Son in the Bible.

To say that there is no God the Son in the Bible would be to directly contradict Isaiah 9:6 and Hebrews 1:8 just to name two passages.

The Son given is Eternal God. That is why He is to be called that. And tthe throne of this God is forever and ever.

I also will not fall into polytheism teaching that there is a God Almighty and a Mighty God - two Gods. And I already proved to you that Jehovah is called both.

Originally posted by jaywill
Let us say then for the sake of argument that John 1:1 is not clear. Not that I believe that or that all other Greek scholars agree with you. But for the moment we will assume that John 1:1 is obscure.

You still have a considerable amount of evidence that it is proper to understand that the Bible intends to portray that though this man, was sent by th ...[text shortened]... two Gods. And I already proved to you that [b]Jehovah is called both.[/b]

i have neither the will nor the energy to refute these erroneous statements. please you will answer me this one question, how is it possible for God to die?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have neither the will nor the energy to refute these erroneous statements. please you will answer me this one question, how is it possible for God to die?

I DO NOT KNOW. I also do not know how a man could die and LIVE again.

I DO know that Acts 20:28 says "The Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God which He obtained with His own blood".

For God to obtain the church with His own blood must mean that God had to become a man with blood.

I also know that Jehovah God says that He is the First and the Last (Isaiah 44:6) and He says "apart from Me there is no God". Yet the One who placed His glorious resurrected hand upon John to keep him from shock of terror said:

"Do not fear I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became DEAD, and behold I am living forever and ever." (Revelation 1:17,18)

Now I don't really have to say "God died". But I can point out Revelation 1:17,18 and Isaiah 44:6 and Acts 20:28 and many many other passages and as a result say with Thomas to Jesus - "My Lord and My God." (John 20:28)


I can say that TO Jesus and I do. I hope you also talk to Jesus.

But as to HOW this can be ?? I do not know. But I BELIEVE.

Ann Coulter