Author Topic: "The" "Antichrist", the "beast", "little horn" & "that man of sin" - the same?  (Read 708 times)

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
There is not shortage of folks who have been taught that "The" "Antichrist", the "beast" of Revelation 13, "that man of sin" of 2 Thess and the "little horn" are all some same individual of some future someday.

Let's start with the term antichrist.

While it cannot be denied that the verses that contain the term antichrist refer to a spirit that has been all around us since the 1st century, I don't believe those verses must also necessarily be speaking of an individual.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/antichrist.htm
In fact there is only one that has been construed to suggest that, and I don't find it very convincing:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Look at what that adjacent hermeneutic reveals.

"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"
"ye have heard that it should come"

Even if it were construed to be an individual the first verse could even be saying something like "ye have heard some say that 'the' (spirit of) 'antichrist' is coming, but just look around you, there are already lots of antichrists!"

From the early church fathers and throughout the Christian era there has been no shortage that suggest it's an individual, but throughout that whole period the church has also been split as to whether that individual was a fixture of the 1st century or an individual yet to come. What if the enemy put the understanding of a single individual in the church, to distract us from the spirit of antichrist being in so many, all around us, including 1.5 billion in Islam that commit the most egregious and only unforgivable sin before Muhammad's god "Allah" if they confess that Jesus is the Son of God. A sin even worse than cold-blooded murder or child rape.

So how well has church focus on an individual served the church itself? The biggest wing of the "church" characterizes those antichrists described above as such:

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ec21na.htm
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
The Second Vatican Council
Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI
October 28, 1965
Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, together with the Fathers of the Sacred Council. For Everlasting Memory.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth (5), who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

It's human nature to get excited about the prospect of a boogie man. What kid didn't jump into bed so that whatever was under it wouldn't grab our ankles? How much fictional literature would be left if the great antagonist was removed from the story? What about movies and TV shows?
When whole shows on the history channel are devoted to the subject of "The" "Antichrist" as an individual, with virtually no content that discusses how scripture defines the term as a spirit in the vast majority of mankind, it isn't hard to see how poorly the concept of an individual "The" "Antichrist" has served the church, and perhaps even repelled those with a life outside of Christ, through such stories as the "Left Behind" series.

What about the "beast"?

Daniel defined the term "beast" as a kingdom in the figurative language of his prophetic dream.

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth....

And Daniel did it while using three of the same figures of lion, bear and leopard kingdoms that we find describing the "beast" in the figurative language of John's prophetic vision. Yet folks play fast and loose with Daniel's definition, in efforts to make scripture fit their doctrines, rather than their doctrine fit scripture. More on that subject in the related thread.

Now let's look at the little horn.

Zondervan Handbook to the Holy Bible" - "Opposing God's people in different guises throughout history is the "little horn" (8, 20-21), until God finally removes its power.

What do we know about the "little horn"? Though the vast majority of the church, believes him to be a figure future or the first century or earlier, what if it were Muhammad that was being described, as Walid Shoebat and a few others suggest?
Are we really to expect that....

Yet a different antichrist false prophet will "wear out the saints" by murdering Jews and Christians - also by beheading. (Dan 7:25) The penalty for any Muslim who converts to Christianity (apostasy) is death.

Yet a different religion will also change the times - by creating their own calendar. (Daniel 7:25) Islam's calendar beginning at the Hijra when Muhammad moved to Medina (and also when he switched the quibla of his followers from facing Jerusalem, to facing the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca).

Yet a different religion will also seek to change laws - by switching the Islamic antichrists "holy day" from the Sabbath to Friday (also during the Hijra) as well as imposing Sharia law, in the place of laws of legitimate sovereign nations, throughout the world. (Daniel 7:25) See "Time, Times and a Half"

Yet a different religion will also build yet another abomination on the Temple Mount that will:
1) Blaspheme God The Most High - for 1300 years with mosaic inscriptions inside and out of "Far be it from Allah's transcendent majesty that he should have a Son".
2) Blaspheme God's name - blaspheme Yahweh through their calling who they claim is the God of the Jews and Christians, "Allah".
3) Blaspheme God's tabernacle - by building the Dome of the Rock, with blasphemy written all over it, within 300 feet of where the Holy of Holies was kept. Also blaspheming the "true tabernacle" of God by railing against the body of Christ. Blaspheming those in heaven, including Paul in particular, but all of the prophets and witnesses of the Gospel by rejecting the whole subject.

Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not...

Muhammad magnifying himself above all through his self-serving alter-ego "Allah" - who, through their own books, is revealed as Muhammad himself - since Islam is about nothing more than his foolish drivel of poorly plagiarized bits and pieces Hebrew and Ararbic fables and Ebionite doctrine he learned from his wife Khadijah's cousin who was an occult Ebionite priest, along with thinly veneered Quraish pagan and Sabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals. He even threw in a magic Zoroastrian flying "baraq" that Muhammad claimed he rode on one night to Jerusalem (where he said he prayed in the temple that had been torn down 500 years earlier), up to "paradise" and back to Mecca by morning, all combined into his preposterous amalgamation created from thin air. Even Mecca, where Adam was supposed to have built there kaaba, didn't exist before the 4th century AD. Muhammad indeed putting himself above God almighty, with many suras even proclaiming "Allah and his messenger", which the evidence painfully demonstrates are ONE.

Made comically conspicuous when his self-serving "Allah" awarded him 1/5 of all the property stolen from others, just like a Mafia Don, or when his god lavished on him all the wives he wanted - but only for him - or when his god sent him down a "revelation" that allowed him to steal his monogamous step-son's only wife.

Worshiping the Quraish pagan's god "Allah" of forces - Satan - with Muhammad himself marrying a 6 year old while sexually violating her at the tender age of nine. Talk about having no regard for what women desire - not even little girls! Relegating their wives to the role of sex slaves.

Sura 2:223 your wives are as tilth (farmland) unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.

While their whole married lives are spent looking forward to the virgins to violate in Muhammad's "paradise". Raping and sexually enslaving female prisoners.

Bukhari:V5B59N459 "I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, 'We went out with Allah's Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.'"

Are we really to expect that....

Yet a different billion and a half people (1/4 of mankind) will also be specifically antichrist as a foundation of their religion ("shirk" - "God has no Son), in which confessing that Jesus is the Son of God would constitute the most egregious and only unforgivable sin? Don't take my word for it, google it or read it in their own words. Please visit the related thread in this forum.

Yet a different billion and a half people will also follow a different, as yet unknown, also antichrist European false prophet, even as we watch Europe fall to Islam, while at present rates even Sweden will be ruled under sharia law within two generations.

Yet a different religion will also have a sub-cult that claims the number 666 as the proof of the Quran. (google islam 666)

Yet a different religion will establish in a few years, what took Islam almost 1400 years to establish.

Or alternately are we really to believe that the 1.5 billion antichrist Muslims in the world today, will all convert to a different as yet unknown European antichrist religion, operated by some as yet unknown charismatic antichrist European leader, and this in a period of just a few years? This, even as we watch Europe fall to Islam?

Or from a preterist view was it really all over and done with in the first century, in light of the restoration of Jews to, and sovereign control over their holy land and city, ending the "times of the gentiles" in Jerusalem in 1967.

With the rise of antichrist all around the world, as the Islamic kingdom "beast" that was mortally wounded in the Battle of Tours France, arises again as that mortal wound was healed through the transfer of western wealth in oil development and purchase.

Let alone that the task before one fourth part of mankind in the world today, according to THE false prophet is to conquer all kingdoms of the world, and subjugate all people on earth to prostrating themselves to the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca and praying in the vain repetitions of the heathen five times a day.

Yet doctrine throughout the church, necessarily precludes even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet, of the book of Revelation. Is it any surprise then that preterists/partial preterists and futurists must each consider the other to be virtually 100% wrong in their understanding of the book of Revelation after chapter 3, since both eschatologies deviate from the traditional continuous-historic context through which Christians and Jews understand the Old Testament, and the reformers understood New Testament prophecy was being fulfilled, including the book of Revelation.
Some suggesting "The" "Antichrist" was past and some future, which is the same confusion that reigns in the church today. Let alone that 2,000 years of history has passed since their pens.

What about "that man of sin"?

.....(not a modern pop theological fad, contrary to Pete's claims) have identified as the same man whom Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "the man of sin"/"the man of lawlessness" (depending on which manuscripts one reads) and as "the son of perdition"/"the son of destruction" (depending on how one translates the word).....
But will "that man of sin" be the reincarnation of Judas, who is the only individual who is referenced as "son of perdition" in scripture? Or is it more likely about something such as satanic influence, right there within the body of Christ's believers, as Judas was influenced?

What's perhaps the most important thing we can observe about this figure? Where does "that man of sin" sit? He "sitteth in the temple of God". Where is the temple of God in the Christian era? WE ARE the temple of God, individually and corporately, so there could never be another sanctified temple after the cross, unless a person believes that Christ's sacrifice was unfinished, insufficient, and incomplete. While I can understand how a few faithful Jews, that may remain blinded through an act of God could desire to build a temple, I believe it's borderline blasphemy (though unintentional) for Christians to cheer it on, in a belief that any future temple could ever be sanctified, let alone any future animal sacrifice have any meaning. Though 80 million evangelicals do in the U.S. alone thanks to an individual named John Nelson Darby in who penned a doctrine in the 19th century].
There is a separate thread on the topic of the Temple of God.

If you want to see "that man of sin" all you have to do youtube search - kundalini in the church - or - todd bentley's violent ministry - or consider the majority of Episcopal church bishops voting to ordain a homosexual. Or simply attend a local "Jesus only" Pentecostal service as I did, and you will likely see him close up and personal (though I would avoid anybody there laying hands on you).
Is it any wonder the church got into such trouble because of passing "that man of sin" off to the 1st century, or some future someday?