Hey guys, I've finally found the antichrist!!
Then again, maybe not:
Yet another antichrist ID, after how many previous failures by others following the same flawed hermeneutics? OK Mark, please tell me this. What is the last possible year by which his true nature must be plainly revealed for all to see? Presumably, you would want him to go all beelzebubby on us before arthritis sets into those youthful joints of his, right? And when that year comes and goes without so much as a horn or tail in sight, or even a whiff of sulphur, what excuses will you give then for yet another failed ID, and who will you latch onto next as your chosen candidate for the role? Harry's future (as yet unborn) son perhaps? After all, the law of succession assures you an endless supply of possible candidates, does it not?
I assume you're familiar with the work of Tim Cohen, who identifies Harry's brother (William) as the candidate for that role with equal certainty, after first choosing papa Charles for the 'honour' (The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea)? Or David Montaigne, who pins it on Barrack Obama? The list goes on, and YouTube is awash with such identifications, false 'revelations', predictions, date setters, 'prophecies', etc etc. When will you (and others like you) learn that such ventures in prophecy-mongering are always doomed to fail because they are all based on a fundamentally flawed system of prophetic interpretation? Authors like Philip Mauro, Arthur Carver, Charles Alexander, Jay Adams, William Cox, Anthony Hoekema and Wm Hendriksen (among many others) have all shown in their writings that such speculation as you have engaged in here is unprofitable, baseless, borderline obsessional, and ultimately doomed to fail.
I know you will reject all this out of hand now, but when your Antichrist/Harry ID fails, as it inevitably must, I hope you will remember this post, and come back here to continue the dialogue. You might then be a little more willing to concede, despite the astronomical odds you now cite in your favour, that maybe, just maybe, you were barking up the wrong tree.
You can find Cohen's presentation of his version of Antichrist skulduggery here:
So we're all gonna be bar-coded one way or another soon huh? I've been hearing that one for 50-odd years now, and still counting. Unadulterated drivel of course, but typical of the faulty hermeneutic that informs this kind of sensationalist cr*p. As for the Royal Family, I hold no brief for them - I'm a republican by instinct. But to identify any one of them as the Antichrist is pure fantasy, borne of an insatiable appetite for prophecy-mongering that borders on the pathological.
But if you are minded to believe such bs, nothing I say is ever gonna convince you that this kinda stuff belongs to the gothic fiction shelf of an imaginary library. Only time will finally dispel these myths. But if precedent is anything to go by, it's passing will simply make way for yet more false identifications. The sad fact of the matter is that some people simply never learn, and as long as that flawed hermeneutic holds sway, they never will.
@ refreshed - You make some good points, but please let me assure you that I have absolutely no problem with people believing as they wish. I simply point out, for those who have ears to hear and are willing to examine the evidence for themselves, that they are just plain wrong. You overlook the fact that many of these identifications with antichrist have been linked to actual dates that have either already past, or are about to pass.
If you are now telling me that these have been delayed because of the power of prayer, then why was that not also foreseen, and date-adjusted accordingly? What exactly was the point of the date-setting in the first place if the fulfilment is a moving feast? I'm more than happy to 'wait and see', as you suggest, even though I believe I already know the outcome of such 'predictions'. But by the same token, I would also ask you to bear in mind the potential damage to the credibility of the Gospel in general, and Biblical prophecy in particular, that such predictions can inflict every time they fail. You cannot continue to cry wolf ad nauseum and ad infinitum without eventually paying a price.
So let me conclude by putting this direct question to you. How many more failed antichrist ID's/predictions are you prepared to give any credence before you finally admit that they are utterly futile, baseless, and little more than a distraction to good Christian stewardship & conduct? For example, any chance you might call time on this perennial fiasco if Harry fails to decalre war on God's people in the next, what.........10 years?...........20 years? After all, this guy Mark has confidently identified him with antichrist with a degree of mathematical certainty that puts all other ID's in the shade.
If this prediction also fails, can there ever again be another antichrist ID that carries a greater degree of certainty than this one?
Nobody is saying that the second advent is signless. I can, however, say confidently that any attempt to identify a personal antichrist and place him in a specific time-frame, along with a whole series of events including, inter alia, a rebuilt third temple with a restored Jewish cultus, a 7 year tribulation during which the faithful suffer unspeakable horrors, and all leading to the 'final' battle (ie Armageddon), is inimical to the concept of its imminence, ie that it can occur at any time - even tomorrow if the Almighty so wills it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that we should be living each day as if it could be our last.
The complete absence of these signs is absolutely no guarantee that the second advent is still far off, for:
'While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.'
I Thess. 5:3 (ESV)
So I beg to differ that my beliefs on the subject encourage complacency. On the contrary, I believe the urgency of our message is enhanced all the more by this understanding of the true nature of the second advent. There's no doubt this is a tricky subject, and I think it boils down to walking a very fine line between watchfulness and avoiding excessive star-gazing:
And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
Acts 1:10-11 (ESV)
In other words, get on with it! You have work to do.
BTW, I put 'final' above inside quotes because, of course, according to the futurist scheme of end-time events, the millennium ends with yet another 'final' battle between good and evil, but that's another subject.
Studying prophecy is highly commendable. Treating it like some kind of Old Moore's Almanac, however, is to miss the point entirely - namely, that 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy' (Rev19:10). As you read through your NT, make a note of all the references that point to Jesus as the focal point of all prophecy (like the one cited above).*
When you have gathered them all together, go back and read them all back to back. Whilst you're doing that, make a note of every NT quotation of the OT, and observe how it's applied or interpreted by the apostles. Again, read them all back to back, and compare that with what you believe to be the focal point of prophecy - the result might surprise, even shock you.
And no, my earlier JFK post is no substitute or competition for prophetic study. It was a one-off post to draw attention to the power of the 'deep state' that could threaten Trump's presidency, and the recent smears against him appear to confirm my concerns.
* Let me help you on your way with this small selection by way of example of what I mean, and what's in store for you:
And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus...
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
1 Peter 1:10-12
Happy hunting sis.
OK guys & gals, over here now please, and I think I managed to read the last few posts in the end. You have certainly been busy lately, haven't ya?
@ refreshed - To conclude re. Hosea & Gomer, my pastor is also a 'Finalist' (I know, pick y/self up off the floor, right?), and he has this to say on the subject:
Thank you for the question! I have struggled with this one, and people in church history have taken different views on it. On balance I think that he really was asked to marry her. There is no hint in the text that it is just a metaphor; it’s recounted as an event. The names given to the children are highly symbolic. It’s been suggested that they are part of what is an allegory. But many names in the OT are given to be symbolic, including in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 7).
It is possible that Gomer was not unfaithful at the point of marriage, but that the statement “Go and take to yourself an adulterous wife" is spoken after she has committed adultery, and is taken to play to the whole marriage. BUT, I think the LORD does ask him to marry an untrustworthy woman. Hosea wasn’t just going to learn to think of Israel’s sin against God as adultery against him. He was going to feel what God felt like: the betrayal, the anger, the jealousy and the undying love. (It is similar to the emotional intensity of Ezekiel’s prophetic loss of his wife in Ez. 24).
So as you can see, my dear friends, it is simply not the case that Finalists 'spiritualize' everything out of existence on a mere whim. We also accept what the Bible says at face value, but if that's all we did, we would miss out on so much.
Case in point: For the record, I also believe that Jonah was historical. But don't forget it's deeper meaning - Mt 12:40. And without the benefit of Heb.7, who would have guessed the true significance of Gen. 14:17-20? Elijah was a real prophet, but he was also a prophecy (or perhaps slightly more accurately, a 'type') in his own right (Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6 and Mt 17:9-13). The list goes on, and these deeper meanings have filled entire volumes. E W Hengstenberg, arguably one of the greatest (if not the best) evangelical scholars of the 19thC, would not have been able to write his monumental 'Christology of the Old Testament' without these deeper meanings. If you ignore this aspect of revealed truth, you impoverish your own source of real spiritual food.
@ vektek - The thread was cross-posted on the Conspiracy forum coz, if you recall, the OP was about Prince Harry being identified as the antichrist. As this entails a certain level of 'conspiracy' to pull off, I though it only apropo to cross-post there as well. As it's now become almost exclusively a debate about interpretation, end-times, etc., I have now removed it from the Conspiracy Forum.
@ Vekky - Ha!, yeah, forgot that joke. I used to know what pan-m meant, but that was a long time ago. Memory ain't what it used to be, but I think I do ok considering. Can't say I blame him tho. Many pastors will avoid the subject coz it's so controversial and potentially divisive. It doesn't need to be really - we still generally agree on the fundamentals.
Not familiar with those WCC-type groups, so can't really comment. If they preach Christ and Him crucified, then I'm with Paul:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
But if they preach 'another gospel..............' Need I say more?
@ vekky - So I wasn't far off with my WCC comparison then. Yes, I'll do some background on them when I have a bit more time on my hands. A bit tied up @ the moment with tax returns, etc.
Well, we were warned about this, weren't we?:
.......so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Without putting a date on it, I consider it one of the main 'signs of the times'. When the world is arraigned in united opposition to the faithful under the banner of a single religion, the great deception will be complete. It fits in perfectly with the scenario depicted in Ezek. 38-39, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, 2 Pet. 3:1-13 and, of course, Rev. 20:7-10. Therein lies one of the most powerful clues as to the correct interpretation of vv 1-6.
Are you paying attention refreshed? Good.
@ vekky - Exactly. Scripture consistently depicts the period immediately preceding the second advent as one of great peril to Christians who refuse to compromise their faith. That leaves no room for the postmillennial dream that things can only get better. It is much harder to conceive of an end-time rebellion if virtually the entire world has been evangelised, whereas it fits in perfectly with the way the world has been going for the last 100 years or so.
Thanks for the reminder. I have read this series by him several times, and they are all excellent. Even the one that mentions Hosea. He could also have quoted one of my favs in that section:
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God.
Good job too. You should also give him the link for Carver - he's absolute dynamite to all forms of millenialism.
Came across this link by accident, but it's of interest coz there's some overlap with one of my 'humdingers', tho I approach the subject from a slightly different angle - ie Genesis 3:15.
Something else for you to read while you wait for my 'magnum opus'.
Hmm.........does he really say that? I'm surprised. Only read the first few paragraphs, then scanned the rest, so didn't pick up on that. No, I don't believe the lake of fire judgment is past. That's Satan's future fate, along with Death, etc. I'd better check a bit more closely in future before posting any more links. So yes, Satan is still very busy, and he (or one of his emissaries) can certainly take up residence in willing 'victims' today.
And as you say, this is not a contradiction of the idea that he is presently bound. That's one of the points I'll be covering in one of my more substantial posts in the near future. I'd better stop calliing 'em 'humdingers', coz that joke is now waring a bit thin, & sounds too much like a boast. I think 'article' will suffice for now.
Yeah, apologies. I should have 'vetted' it a bit more carefully. He's correct generally about the victory over Satan's kingdom that the Cross represents, but he just runs a bit too far with it. Some ppl just don't know when to stop while they're ahead - like me for example.
As for the 'humdinger boast', glad you get the dry British humour. It doesn't always travel well across the pond.
Challenge the message and not the messenger!
The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate!
Personal attack is often the best indication that the writer knows his logic is flawed and therefore tries to deflect attention by attacking the opponent, instead of attacking the arguments of the opponent.
forum viewed 587,694 times
topics per page limited to: 3
average number of messages per page: 27
Copyright 1999 - 2017 www.curezone.org