Understanding Bible Prophecy of the End Time

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If only those who claim they know what will happen at the end when it comes to biblical prophecy would look at the plain Word of God, they would see what even a simple schoolboy could tell them, it shows a straight path through history to the End Times. We see the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome as prophecy shows actual events to occur throughout the history of Christianity from the time of Daniel until Last Days and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. If one looks, one will find that this was the viewpoint of almost all Protestant Reformers and their churches from the Reformation into our era, but then something changed, something came in that blinded and distorted what had been plain.

Satan as always the adversary, had his followers bring in seeds of doubt which wiped away the understanding, bringing in false ideas that biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ's birth so thus nothing applies to the true history that prophecy shows. Another seed of doubt is brought in by those who say all or most of the prophecy the Bible gives us is in the future, shortly before the Second Coming, so we have nothing which we can apply it to so can ignore what it shows, and all the truth of history notwithstanding.

If one follows what history gives us, suddenly the events line up, Alexander the Great is shown just when he appears in the flow of events given in prophecy, the Roman Empire comes right after, just as prophecy gave all the way to the Last Days. So why have so many Christians even among the churchs of the Reformers given up the understanding unfolded by the evidence of history, that they once held.

We see what history shows us on the 1260 days in Biblical prophecy for day equals a year principal, that exactly match up and are the 1260 years in which the Roman Catholic Church did in fact "war against the saints". It was one of the major reason for the Protestant Reformation and these 1260 years ended in 1798. The Protestants Reformers and theologians understood and saw that the Catholic Church, from 538 AD to 1798 AD was in fact the antichrist power that Daniel prophesized about. Daniel said that that the saints would be given to his hand for "a time and times and half a time". A time represents a year in the Hebrew 360-day year. So 3 1/2 times is 3 1/2 years. This equals 42 months based on the biblical 30-day month--or 1,260 days. In Thessalonians 2 Paul told us when the 1260 years would begin. It was when the "restrainer" was removed.

So who was the restrainer of this antichrist? Nearly all early church fathers and early Protestant theologians agree that the restrainer was not the Jews at the fall of Jerusalem or a King or the "Holy Spirit" as some try to say. The restrainer that had to be removed before the arrival of that antichrist power was the Roman Empire.

Why this prophesy of Daniel is so important is that it happened exactly as prophesized. The Roman Empire began to disintegrate in the late 4th and early 5th century as invasions overwhelmed the capacity of the Empire to govern and mount a coordinated defense and the Roman Caesar "restrainer" was being removed. The 1260 year period when the antichrist power would preside over the dark ages, with its persecution and inquisitions, etc began a little later in 538 AD after the Roman Empire and the Caesars ruling at Rome had collapsed to allow another power to come in and the eastern empire ruler Emperor Justinian issued his famous decree that made the Pope the legal "Head of all the Holy Churches". This began the prophesized reign of that antichrist power with its false rites, sacrament's, and system of worship and you add 1260 years to 538 AD and we come out to 1798 AD, when this evil system received the 'deadly wound' that seemed to take it down.

So what does history shows us happened in 1798 AD? Napoleon's army under General Berthier entered Rome with his French troops and took down this antichrist power. The Papacy was abolished, the pontifical ring was removed, and the sitting Pope, Pope Pius VI was sent to France, where he died in exile. The Biblical prophecy happened just as given, but many try to hide the truth of the matter or say the Day/Year Principle is not applicable, and yet it fits as said in a trial, 'like a glove'.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you try to take out the Day/Year Principle and say the period was only 1260 literal days, only 3 1/2 years, it applies to nothing and falls absurdly short of fulfilling the requirements of the 1260-day prophecies in regard to the Papacy as the Reformers understood and makes no sense. But when, by the year-day principle is correctly applied to 1260 years, the prophecy comes to life and fulfillment. In 538 A.D. the Ostragoths abandoned their siege of Rome, and this left the Bishop of Rome to exercise the power and prerogatives of Justinian's decree of 533 A.D. the power and the authority of the Papacy grew, and with it persecution of the true believers and destruction of many such as the Waldenses.

Exactly 1260 years later the Papacy suffered its "deathblow" which everyone thought was the end The armies of Napoleon in Italy placed the Pope at the mercy of the French Revolutionary Government, which declared it a enemy of the Republic. The government also urged Napoleon to destroy the center of unity of the Papal power of the Roman church, and Napoleon did just that.

When General Berthier, with the French army, marched into Rome it was proclaimed that the political rule of the Papacy was at an end and he took the Pope prisoner and removed to France where he died in exile, and it look like that was the end of the Papacy for all intents and purposes.

John in Revelation also shows the same prophecy when the Roman Church would reign for 1260 years before being "wounded unto death." Revelation 13:5, "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." This is the same 1260 days of Daniel and using the Day/Year Principle gives the 1260 years as confirmed by the historical records:

"Vigilius...ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius." History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 327

So the Bible says the antichrist power which is the Beast will rule for 1260 years before receiving a mortal wound. Now it's just a matter of simple mathematics. If the prophecy is correct, 1260 years after 538 AD the Beast must receive a mortal wound. If you add 1260 years to the beginning year for the Roman Catholic church, 538 AD, you will arrive in the year 1798 AD. So what happens next, well Bible Prophecy tells us the deadly wound would be healed..: Revelation 13:3, "... his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."

History records this:
Mussolini and (Cardinal) Gasspari sign historic Roman pact.
"The Roman question tonight was a thing of the past, and the Vatican was at peace with Italy... In affixing the autographs to the memorable document healing the wound of many years, extreme cordiality was displayed on both sides" -The San Francisco Chronicle. Feb. 11, 1929

From 11 o' clock this morning there was another sovereign independent State in the world. At that time Premier Mussolini, as Italian Foreign Minister representing King Victor Emmanuel--the first Italian Premier ever to cross the threshold of the Vatican--exchanged with Cardinal Gasparri, Papal Secretary of State, representing Pope Pius XI, ratifications of the treaties signed at the Lateran Palace on Feb. 11. By that simple act the sovereign independent State of Vatican City came into existence.-New York Times July 7, 1929

So we see the beast is one that "was", "is not" and "yet is". Revelation 17:8, "...behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

The Beast that was: The Roman church began in 538 AD and continued until Napoleon sent in General Berthier in 1798.

...and is not: From 1798 until the signing of the Lateran treaty in 1929, the Roman Church/state was non-existent.

...yet is: From 1929 to present the Roman Church has been a church & state.

Bible prophecy lays it out, you just have to compare to the historical records and it shows how it comes to be fulfilled. But one has to study the scriptures to see what the prophecy tells us, and we see the antichrist power will continue to the end, Revelation 19:20.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The prophecy in Daniel 7 and 12, Revelation 11, 12 and 13, all mention this same persecuting power with its false system of worship, who enforce a church and state union, causing the kings of the earth to bow down and worship it. Looking at Daniel we understand this can only be the time of the Roman empire and it's change into Papal Rome.

Lets look at the following timeline which outlines just how the Pope first took it's powers over church and state:

533 AD - Emperor Justinian decrees John, as the Bishop of Rome, Chief Bishop of all the churches and he was not to be questioned that in her was the supremacy of the pontificate. Edicts of Novellae, 131st chap. II. This was not the first time that the Bishop of Rome declared himself to be ruler of all the churches, but it is the first time the claim was backed up by the secular sword and temporal powers granted to the Papal System.

536 AD - General Belisarius, under the command of Justinian, marched to Rome, deposed the Ostrogoth installed Bishop of Rome (Silverius) and exiled him.

537 AD - Belisarius installed Vigilius as Bishop of Rome

538 AD - General Belisarius broke the siege and the Ostrogoths withdrew from Rome. Pope Silverius died in prison, marking it the first time Justinians Decree, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Church could actually be implemented by Vigilius.

1798 AD - General Berthier marched to Rome, entered it unopposed and proclaimed it a Roman Republic, demanded of the Pope the renunciation of his temporal authority, then take prisoner.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia states on Pope Vigilius beginning pontificate and his temporal powers:

"From this time on the popes, more and more involved in worldly events, no longer belong solely to the Church; they are men of the state, and then rules of the state.[ EDITORS' NOTE : Some writers hold that the beginning of Vigilius' legitimate pontificate should be reckoned from 538 rather than 537, because his deposed predecessor, Silverius, did not die until June, 538." Original Catholic Encyclopedia - Home of the largest Catholic Encyclopedia resource on the web...

The 1260 years of Papal Supremacy is attested to by many sources, not just a few:

Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of barbarous hordes, Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection and asked him to rule them; and thus in this simple manner, the best title of all to kingly right, commenced the temporal sovereignty of the Popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Caesar, the Vicar of Christ took up the sceptre to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages, from sentiments of respect for the dignity of his office and because he was the only mediator whom they recognized in their almost interminable wars.

Source: Two Romes, by James P. Conry, in The American Catholic Quarterly Review, Volume XXXVI (36), edited by James Andrew Corcoran, Patrick John Ryan, Edmond Francis Prendergast, 1911, pgs. 193-194.

... the right to her Temporal Sovereignty is an integral right of the Church as constituted by her Divine Founder. It has prevailed de facto for more than twelve hundred years, and has been possessed de jure by Divine Natural Law from the beginning of Christianity,... Source: The Victories of Rome and the Temporal Monarchy of the Church, 5th edition, By Kenelm Digby Best, London, 1906, pg. xii.

Rome has been a government under the Popes for some twelve hundred years. Source: Complete Works of the Most Rev. John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, 1866, Volume 2. pg. 778

... In books of all sizes, and from the pulpit of every church, we have been taught from our infancy, that the "beast, the man of sin, and the scarlet harlot," mentioned in the Revelations, were names which God himself had given to the Pope; and we have all been taught to believe of the Catholic Church, that her worship was "idolatrous," and that her doctrines were "damnable.".... Now let us put a plain question or two to ourselves, and to these our readers; and we shall quickly be able to form a just estimate of the modesty, sincerity, and consistency of these revilers of the Catholic religion: ―they will not, because they cannot, deny, that this religion was the ONLY CHRISTIAN religion in the world for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ. They may say, indeed, that for the first three hundred years there was no Pope seated at Rome. But, then, for twelve hundred years there had been; and, during that period, all the nations of Europe, and some part of America, had become Christian, and all acknowledged the Pope as their head in religious matters; and, in short, there was no other Christian Church known in the world, nor had any other ever been thought of. Can we believe, then, that Christ, who died to save sinners, who sent forth his gospel as the means of their salvation, would have suffered a false Christian religion, and no other than a false Christian religion, to be known amongst men all this while? Will these modest assailants of the faith of their and our ancestors assert to our faces, that, for twelve hundred years at least, there were no true Christians in the world? Will they tell us, that Christ, who promised to be with the teachers of his word to the end of the world, wholly left them, and gave up hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people to be led in darkness to their eternal perdition, by one whom his inspired followers had denominated the "man of sin, and the scarlet harlot"? Will they, indeed, dare to tell us, that Christ gave up the world wholly to "Antichrist" for twelve hundred years?

Source: History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, Showing How That Event Has Impoverished and Degraded the Main Body of the People in Those Countries, by William Cobbett, published in 1832 in New York by John Doyle, 12 Liberty-street; and Thomas Doyle, Market-street, Providence R.I., pages 6 and 7.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So what happens next, well Adventist hold that ...'Following the close of probation will be a "time of trouble," a brief but intense period of time immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus Christ. Adventists have traditionally believed that the Roman Catholic Church will return to prominence during the end times, fulfilling the prophecy of the first beast of Revelation 13'. Have we seen that starting to show, well lets look at the current news and see what we find..
















It just goes on and on....
 
Last edited:

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So what happens in this time of the end, much is unveiled in the book 'The Great Controversy'...
"“I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:1, 2, 4.

This scripture points forward to a time when the announcement of the fall of Babylon, as made by the second angel of Revelation 14 (verse 8), is to be repeated, with the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the various organizations that constitute Babylon, since that message was first given, in the summer of 1844. A terrible condition of the religious world is here described. With every rejection of truth the minds of the people will become darker, their hearts more stubborn, until they are entrenched in an infidel hardihood. In defiance of the warnings which God has given, they will continue to trample upon one of the precepts of the Decalogue, until they are led to persecute those who hold it sacred. Christ is set at nought in the contempt placed upon His word and His people. As the teachings of spiritualism are accepted by the churches, the restraint imposed upon the carnal heart is removed, and the profession of religion will become a cloak to conceal the basest iniquity. A belief in spiritual manifestations opens the door to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, and thus the influence of evil angels will be felt in the churches. GC 603.2

Of Babylon, at the time brought to view in this prophecy, it is declared: “Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” Revelation 18:5. She has filled up the measure of her guilt, and destruction is about to fall upon her. But God still has a people in Babylon; and before the visitation of His judgments these faithful ones must be called out, that they partake not of her sins and “receive not of her plagues.” Hence the movement symbolized by the angel coming down from heaven, lightening the earth with his glory and crying mightily with a strong voice, announcing the sins of Babylon. In connection with his message the call is heard: “Come out of her, My people.” These announcements, uniting with the third angel's message, constitute the final warning to be given to the inhabitants of the earth. GC 604.1

Fearful is the issue to which the world is to be brought. The powers of earth, uniting to war against the commandments of God, will decree that “all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond” (Revelation 13:16), shall conform to the customs of the church by the observance of the false sabbath. All who refuse compliance will be visited with civil penalties, and it will finally be declared that they are deserving of death. On the other hand, the law of God enjoining the Creator's rest day demands obedience and threatens wrath against all who transgress its precepts. GC 604.2

With the issue thus clearly brought before him, whoever shall trample upon God's law to obey a human enactment receives the mark of the beast; he accepts the sign of allegiance to the power which he chooses to obey instead of God. The warning from heaven is: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation.” Revelation 14:9, 10. "...
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I don't see many, if any, following your anti-Biblical polemics.

Pope Francis regularly affirms that Jesus is the Christ, the God-man,
something Scripture tells us the Antichrist will not do (see 1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7). (but Hobie doesn't care, he does it anyway.)
Pope Francis has not changed any Church teaching and that the Holy Spirit will protect him and any other pope from doing so. In other words, the Antichrist will not be a pope. Ditto with a pope’s being a false prophet.
Protestant claims that the Pope is the Antichrist are not new. For more on this subject, see our tract “The Antichrist,” as well as a related article by Jimmy Akin.


The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.

Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.

For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.

Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.

The difficulty with the papal Antichrist theory is that while it may have provided psychological comfort to early Protestant leaders, it does not fit the facts as they are presented in Scripture.

Even given the identification of the Antichrist with the beast, the pope is the last person who would fit the biblical requirements for being the individual Antichrist (or any Antichrist). The epistles of John clearly indicate that the Antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. However, the basis for the pope’s position in the Church is that Christ has come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, leaving the successor of Peter as his vicar or representative on earth.

For the pope to deny that Christ has come in the flesh would be to undercut the basis of his position. Since no pope historically has made such claims, it is easily verifiable that no pope in history has been an Antichrist. Neither will any future pope be inclined to deny the basis of his position. The anti-papal argument simply is not credible.

Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.

A Crack in the Door​

Now that Protestantism has been in a state of separation from the Church for several centuries, psychological pressures have eased, and many Protestants today recognize the absurdity of the papal Antichrist theory and reject those portions of their confessional writings that endorse it.

If Protestants are prepared to admit that the pope is not the Antichrist and that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, then the questions may be posed: “Then what are they? How can they be otherwise explained?”

Most Christians are and always have been members of the Catholic Church. The pope and the Catholic Church are too central to historic Christianity to be dismissed as simply an accident. They must have some part in God’s plan. But if they are not the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon, then the logical alternative is to recognize them as the Vicar of Christ and the Bride of Christ—the very realization that drove the early Reformers to the papal Antichrist theory.
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The New World Translation (NWT) is produced by the Watch Tower Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). The New Testament (or “Christian Greek Scriptures,” as they call it) was first produced in 1950, followed by the Old Testament (“Hebrew Scriptures”), produced progressively in five volumes from 1953-1960. Modern versions of the NWT contain the entire Bible in one volume.

The NWT is a travesty of the Scriptures for two main reasons:
First, of the five men who comprised the translation committee–Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel–Franz is the only one who had any knowledge at all of the biblical languages. Franz studied Greek for only two years (not biblical Greek, though), and he was allegedly self-taught in Hebrew. The other four men completely lack any credentials that would qualify them as competent biblical scholars.

Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted in a manner to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1, in the NWT, reads that the Word was ” a god” (rather than “God”) because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Also, in Matthew 26:26, the NWT reads “this means my body” (rather than “this is my body”) because JWs deny the Real Presence.

Reputable Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike reject the NWT as being biased, unreliable, and unscholarly. People who open their doors to the JWs ought to be warned that the NWT is not a safe or reliable translation of God’s Word.

Hobie will shift into a defense mechanism called cognitive dissonance, lets wait and see.

1717252924549.png

Several weeks ago he supported Alexander Hislop, now he supports Charlie Taze. Who will he follow tomorrow?
 
Last edited:

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,859
3,241
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The little horn comes out of the 4th beast power--Rome.
Also, by the very name AntiChrist, we can see it must be a religious power. he is requiring worship.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The little horn comes out of the 4th beast power--Rome.
Also, by the very name AntiChrist, we can see it must be a religious power. he is requiring worship.
And you can see who they are truly worshiping...
Revelation 13:4
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So what happens next, well Adventist hold that ...'Following the close of probation will be a "time of trouble," a brief but intense period of time immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus Christ. Adventists have traditionally believed that the Roman Catholic Church will return to prominence during the end times, fulfilling the prophecy of the first beast of Revelation 13'. Have we seen that starting to show, well lets look at the current news and see what we find..
















It just goes on and on....
You see these as indicative of the RCC's return to prominence? Boy, I sure don't!
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The little horn comes out of the 4th beast power--Rome.
Do you automatically assume pagan Rome is one and the same as Christian Rome???
Also, by the very name AntiChrist, we can see it must be a religious power. he is requiring worship.
Yea, after he declares himself to be Christ. What does the Bible say about the anti-Christ?

The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture:
1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them.

In 1 John 2:18–19, we read, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”

This passage appears to speak of a major individual Antichrist, as well as many minor individual Antichrists, who apparently are apostate Christians for “they went out from us.” The appearance of the individual Antichrist is yet future (“Antichrist is coming”), but the presence of the many Antichrists is a signal that “it is the last hour.”

In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have “deny[ied] that Jesus is the Christ” and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Presumably the same would be true of the individual Antichrist.

1 John 4:1–6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John 4:3, we read that “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”

This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John’s day but would grow afterward.

Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways:
(1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism),
(2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or
(3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).

Inferring other Antichrists
The four passages given above are all that the New Testament has to say about the Antichrist—at least under that name. But many have identified the Antichrist with the beast from the sea in Revelation 13 or with the “man of lawlessness” that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

These identifications are reasonable, but must be understood with some nuance. The beast from the sea that John speaks of in Revelation is best understood in its initial, literal fulfillment as one of the early Roman emperors Yet, there are often multiple fulfillments of a single prophecy, and the beast may also point forward to an individual at the end of time who will be very much like the early Roman emperors.

Such an individual is easy to identify with Paul’s “man of lawlessness,” for he appears to be a still-future individual who does things like the Roman emperors. Paul states that he will one day manifest himself in the temple of God—which to a first-century Jew would mean the Jewish temple in Jerusalem—and demand to be worshiped as a god.

This is related to things the Roman emperors did, such as when Caligula—after he began claiming to be a god—attempted to have an image of himself put in the Jerusalem temple. This plan was narrowly averted.

Since the many Antichrists are identifiable as apostate Christians, the future, individual Antichrist may also be an apostate Christian or from an apostate family, people, or nation (i.e., that used to be Christian but by then will not be).

This is a point of difference between the Antichrist and the original, literal fulfillment of the beast (the early Roman emperors were not apostate Christians). But it is not a hindrance to identifying the future, individual Antichrist with the future man of lawlessness or a future fulfillment of the beast from the sea, since future emperor-like individuals may have a personal, familial, or national Christian background.
source
 
Last edited:

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You see these as indicative of the RCC's return to prominence? Boy, I sure don't!
CC is more accurate. We never lost our prominence. Even a few corrupt popes centuries ago did not cause Jesus to abandon us. We have survived constant resistance from the world, revolts, attacks from armies, tyrants, the media, and forums like this one. I could go on.
There are about 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, and growing every year; because our leaders are holy and smart??? What a joke.
Even if the Vatican got nuked, it could not destroy the indestructible. We rest on God's promises that can never be broken, or the Bible is a lie.
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
CC is more accurate. We never lost our prominence.
Ah, but when did you gain that prominence? I use RCC (pretty much a Protestant term nowadays) because in the first three centuries the Catholic Church was not particularly Roman. Even at Nicaea the independence from Roman hegemony of the episcopates in Alexandria, Antioch, and elsewhere was ratified. See Nicene Canon 6.

No doubt in the Latin West the Papacy held sway much earlier than 325. Not so in the Greek East.
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Ah, but when did you gain that prominence?
At Pentecost, with Peter (Rock) as the spokesman.
I use RCC (pretty much a Protestant term nowadays) because in the first three centuries the Catholic Church was not particularly Roman.
RCC is a slur started by the Anglicans; it has been explained ad nauseum.
Even at Nicaea the independence from Roman hegemony of the episcopates in Alexandria, Antioch, and elsewhere was ratified. See Nicene Canon 6.
Canon 6 doesn't say that.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over them all, since a similar arrangement is the custom for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise let the churches in Antioch and the other provinces retain their privileges. It should be understood everywhere that if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan bishop, this great council has declared he should not remain a bishop. If two or three bishops are prone to strife and oppose an ordination which has been duly approved by the majority in accordance with church law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.​
glossary states:​
metropolitan bishop
the bishop of the nearest metropolis, e.g. Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, or Antioch.​
No doubt in the Latin West the Papacy held sway much earlier than 325. Not so in the Greek East.
Roman hegemony of the episcopates is stupid and insulting, it's worse than "RCC". And the Greek east were excommunicated 5 times, and each time resolved by Rome, agreed by both sides. We've been over that before. Did you bother to read canon 6, or did you read into it to fit an agenda?
 
Last edited:

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It just goes on and on....
So do your lies. A "one world government" led by the Pope is fear mongering nonsense. And you should go by what the Bible says about the anti-Christ, (post 12) and stop referring to the so called reformers who were dead wrong about the Pope being the anti-Christ. That garbage is no longer taught in Protestant Bible colleges, but endless ranting by made-in-America Bible cults. All that anti-Catholic crap you are neck deep in rots the mind.
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
At Pentecost, with Peter (Rock) as the spokesman.

RCC is a slur started by the Anglicans; it has been explained ad nauseum.

Canon 6 doesn't say that.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over them all, since a similar arrangement is the custom for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise let the churches in Antioch and the other provinces retain their privileges. It should be understood everywhere that if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan bishop, this great council has declared he should not remain a bishop. If two or three bishops are prone to strife and oppose an ordination which has been duly approved by the majority in accordance with church law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.​
glossary states:​
metropolitan bishop
the bishop of the nearest metropolis, e.g. Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, or Antioch.​

Roman hegemony of the episcopates is stupid and insulting, it's worse than "RCC". And the Greek east were excommunicated 5 times, and each time resolved by Rome, agreed by both sides. We've been over that before. Did you bother to read canon 6, or did you read into it to fit an agenda?
We can respectfully disagree on how to interpret the Nicene Canons, and anything else. Respectfulness, for me at least, means I will never challenge your opinion as the product of not having read what you are opining about.

But of course, I read the canons carefully before opining. And I also considered the views of perhaps the greatest Church historian of the twentieth century, Herny Chadwick, The Early Church (1993):

“Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) had traditionally exercised a measure of jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of their province, Alexandria controlling upper Egypt and Libya, and Rome the churches of southern Italy. These rights were recognized as a modification of the metropolitan system, though their nature and limits are not defined. A significant canon declared that special honour attaches to the see of Jerusalem, though without prejudice to the metropolitan rights of Caesarea. These pregnant words marked a crucial step towards the fifth-century creation of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, gradually achieved in face of bitter opposition from Caesarea.

“The Nicene canons throw much light, therefore, on the developing organization and ‘power structure’ of the church. By 325 the Greek churches at least were accustomed to an organization based on the secular provincial system, and the unit normally conformed to that of the State. But what court of appeal could stand above a provincial council? Unlike the West, the East had no single see of unquestioned pre-eminence, but only great cities like Alexandria and Antioch and (from 330) Constantinople. The one Greek city with sacred sites of the first importance was Jerusalem, whose bishops showed a strong awareness that they presided over the mother-church of Christendom; but it never became a major centre of power in the Church. Not until the fifth century, in face of passionate opposition from Alexandria, could the see of Constantinople establish in the East a position comparable with that of Rome in the West. But for the Latin bishops the Western prestige of Rome simplified the problem.”
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
15,012
4,467
113
70
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If only those who claim they know what will happen at the end when it comes to biblical prophecy would look at the plain Word of God, they would see what even a simple schoolboy could tell them, it shows a straight path through history to the End Times. We see the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome as prophecy shows actual events to occur throughout the history of Christianity from the time of Daniel until Last Days and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. If one looks, one will find that this was the viewpoint of almost all Protestant Reformers and their churches from the Reformation into our era, but then something changed, something came in that blinded and distorted what had been plain.

Satan as always the adversary, had his followers bring in seeds of doubt which wiped away the understanding, bringing in false ideas that biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ's birth so thus nothing applies to the true history that prophecy shows. Another seed of doubt is brought in by those who say all or most of the prophecy the Bible gives us is in the future, shortly before the Second Coming, so we have nothing which we can apply it to so can ignore what it shows, and all the truth of history notwithstanding.

If one follows what history gives us, suddenly the events line up, Alexander the Great is shown just when he appears in the flow of events given in prophecy, the Roman Empire comes right after, just as prophecy gave all the way to the Last Days. So why have so many Christians even among the churchs of the Reformers given up the understanding unfolded by the evidence of history, that they once held.

We see what history shows us on the 1260 days in Biblical prophecy for day equals a year principal, that exactly match up and are the 1260 years in which the Roman Catholic Church did in fact "war against the saints". It was one of the major reason for the Protestant Reformation and these 1260 years ended in 1798. The Protestants Reformers and theologians understood and saw that the Catholic Church, from 538 AD to 1798 AD was in fact the antichrist power that Daniel prophesized about. Daniel said that that the saints would be given to his hand for "a time and times and half a time". A time represents a year in the Hebrew 360-day year. So 3 1/2 times is 3 1/2 years. This equals 42 months based on the biblical 30-day month--or 1,260 days. In Thessalonians 2 Paul told us when the 1260 years would begin. It was when the "restrainer" was removed.

So who was the restrainer of this antichrist? Nearly all early church fathers and early Protestant theologians agree that the restrainer was not the Jews at the fall of Jerusalem or a King or the "Holy Spirit" as some try to say. The restrainer that had to be removed before the arrival of that antichrist power was the Roman Empire.

Why this prophesy of Daniel is so important is that it happened exactly as prophesized. The Roman Empire began to disintegrate in the late 4th and early 5th century as invasions overwhelmed the capacity of the Empire to govern and mount a coordinated defense and the Roman Caesar "restrainer" was being removed. The 1260 year period when the antichrist power would preside over the dark ages, with its persecution and inquisitions, etc began a little later in 538 AD after the Roman Empire and the Caesars ruling at Rome had collapsed to allow another power to come in and the eastern empire ruler Emperor Justinian issued his famous decree that made the Pope the legal "Head of all the Holy Churches". This began the prophesized reign of that antichrist power with its false rites, sacrament's, and system of worship and you add 1260 years to 538 AD and we come out to 1798 AD, when this evil system received the 'deadly wound' that seemed to take it down.

So what does history shows us happened in 1798 AD? Napoleon's army under General Berthier entered Rome with his French troops and took down this antichrist power. The Papacy was abolished, the pontifical ring was removed, and the sitting Pope, Pope Pius VI was sent to France, where he died in exile. The Biblical prophecy happened just as given, but many try to hide the truth of the matter or say the Day/Year Principle is not applicable, and yet it fits as said in a trial, 'like a glove'.
The day year principle does not hold true.

The Papacy is still on the throne of Rome and the Vatican.

If you wish to use the day as a year principal you run into too many unsolvable biblical dilemmas.

YOu also have people holding a day=1000 year priniciple as well.

No the 1260 days are 1260 days. it is exactly 3 1/2 by the Jewish calendar. The 70th week of Danile is 7 years and half of it is 1260 dayus.

Teh first 1260 days of the 70th week are the tribulation. the sewcond 1260 days are known as the great ribulation.

Israel is taken to a place of safety at the mid point of the tribulation and protected for 1260 days!
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
We can respectfully disagree on how to interpret the Nicene Canons, and anything else. Respectfulness, for me at least, means I will never challenge your opinion as the product of not having read what you are opining about.
Looks to me I read canon 6 more carefully than you did.
But of course, I read the canons carefully before opining. And I also considered the views of perhaps the greatest Church historian of the twentieth century, Herny Chadwick, The Early Church (1993):

“Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) had traditionally exercised a measure of jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of their province, Alexandria controlling upper Egypt and Libya, and Rome the churches of southern Italy. These rights were recognized as a modification of the metropolitan system, though their nature and limits are not defined. A significant canon declared that special honour attaches to the see of Jerusalem, though without prejudice to the metropolitan rights of Caesarea. These pregnant words marked a crucial step towards the fifth-century creation of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, gradually achieved in face of bitter opposition from Caesarea.

“The Nicene canons throw much light, therefore, on the developing organization and ‘power structure’ of the church. By 325 the Greek churches at least were accustomed to an organization based on the secular provincial system, and the unit normally conformed to that of the State.
The structure of church government (ecclesiology) is modelled after the Council of Jerusalem, a council the Bible indicates as infallible. That means of resolving controversies hasn't changed. Nicae used the same model as do all ecumenical councils. The starting point is the government of the Davidic Kingdom, monarchical and hierarchical. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism; the Jewish roots of our core doctrines is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
But what court of appeal could stand above a provincial council? Unlike the West, the East had no single see of unquestioned pre-eminence, but only great cities like Alexandria and Antioch and (from 330) Constantinople. The one Greek city with sacred sites of the first importance was Jerusalem, whose bishops showed a strong awareness that they presided over the mother-church of Christendom; but it never became a major centre of power in the Church. Not until the fifth century, in face of passionate opposition from Alexandria, could the see of Constantinople establish in the East a position comparable with that of Rome in the West. But for the Latin bishops the Western prestige of Rome simplified the problem.”
What would you expect from an Anglican? Look at the moral mess they are in now. As you may know, an Anglican bishop set out to disprove Catholicism with scholarly research. To his surprise, he couldn't find Protestantism in the early church, and initiated the Oxford Movement. It's Cardinal J. Newman, not Alfred E. Newman. I won't confuse the two if you don't.
My historians can beat up your historians.:p

The Catholic doctrine concerning Faith and Reason is this – that Reason proves that Catholicism ought to be believed, and that in that form it comes before the Will, which accepts it or rejects it, as moved by grace or not. Reason does not prove that Catholicism’ is true, as it proves mathematical propositions are true; but it proves that there is a case for it so strong that we see we ought to accept it. There may be many difficulties, which we cannot answer, but still we see on the whole that the grounds are sufficient for conviction. This is not the same thing as conviction. If conviction were unavoidable, we might be said to be forced to believe, as we are forced to confess that two sides of a triangle are greater than the third; but, while there is enough evidence for conviction, whether we will be convinced or not, rests with ourselves.
(v. 31; To Catherine Ward, 12 Oct. 1848)
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,257
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What would you expect from an Anglican?
Careful research and honest analysis. Just as I would expect from a Catholic.
Look at the moral mess they are in now.
I'm not aware of any "moral mess" affecting the Anglican communion that comes within a mile of approaching the moral mess that Catholic pedophile priests have left in their wake. But honestly, I don't see what that has to do with Chadwick. Are you suggesting that Chadwick was not a competent historian because (a) he was Anglican, and (b) Anglicans are morally messed up?

As you may know, an Anglican bishop set out to disprove Catholicism with scholarly research. To his surprise, he couldn't find Protestantism in the early church, and initiated the Oxford Movement. It's Cardinal J. Newman
Yes, I am aware. But I suspect that for every Anglican cleric crossing the Tiber, we can find a Catholic cleric crossing the Thames.

My historians can beat up your historians.:p
Cute!