Is the form of the anti-christ clear in the bible or is it subject to interpretation? Is it possible we are monitoring the wrong signs? God has been known to act in mysterious ways - can this event be one of those instance?
2006-07-25 01:20:30 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Please do not quote or copy/paste text. Respond in plain English. I've read the text before posting this question and STILL don't get.
If you are confused too, do not answer!
2006-07-25 01:28:49 · update #1
Mr Mister, you are a perfect example of a stereotype. I ask a question for enlightenment and you respond dirisively and angrily. It's juvenile and not very christianlike.
It is impossible to converse with people who are as literal as you; we will go off-topic to some other simplistic one. I will not define literal either, you will misunderstand that too.
2006-07-25 01:50:53 · update #2
Mr: I read some of your writing too and you are so full of hatred and anger? Why is that? I'll be afraid to be anywhere near you! YOU scare the living daylights out of me!
I hope you're not one of those fanatics that does not make it to heaven - check yourself or you may end up where you belong!!!!!
2006-07-25 02:46:38 · update #3
It seems pretty open for interpretation. In John's letters, he says anyone who opposes Christ is an antichrist, but in Revelations, John makes it pretty clear that he has a particular person in mind when he speaks about the beast, or "antichrist."
Also, some say the antichrist already came, claiming that it was Emperor Nero or some particular Jewish leaders.
Others say Antichrist is here now, saying that it is the papacy.
Most believe that the Antichrist is still to come, and will be the evil man who opposes Christ during the end times.
God bless!
2006-07-25 01:26:05 · answer #1 · answered by Kiwi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your confusing several issues. It's not that the Bible doesn't say it. It's that you are spiritually ignorant and cant grasp it.
First Beast and 2nd Beast
Revelation 13:1-10 discusses the rise of the Antichrist as “The Beast of the Sea”. Yet Revelation 13:11-18 discusses another Beast, as “The Beast out of the Earth”. What is the second Beast, and how is he different from the first Beast?
(Beast of The sea):
Think that the Antichrist is the one lone being during that time. And Revelation 13:1, this is the infamous Antichrist, the world dictator. And he’s the politician. And it says he comes out of the sea, because that represents Gentile nations. And so he comes out of the Revived Roman Empire, of Daniel 9:26.
(Beast out of the Earth):
And the False Prophet who backs him is a world religious leader in Revelation 13:11. And he has the two horns of a lamb, but speaks as a dragon. The two horns of the lamb identify him as a member of a Christian background, because Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, John 1:29. And lo and behold, he speaks as the dragon, that’s Satan, Revelation 20:2. So though he claims to be Christian, he propagates false doctrine. And he sets up this image of the Antichrist in the temple, II Thessalonians 2:4.
2006-07-25 01:24:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was a historical person. Just before Revelation was written by John of Patmos, Nero had been emporer, and had proclaimed himself as a god. He had his own statue placed in the temple of Jerusalem, angering the Jews. At the time Revelation was written, a second emporer had been crowned who was claiming to be Nero reincarnated.
Another point which leads me to this is the number 666. A common "game" at the time was to transfer the letters of a person's name into a series of numbers. Nero's full name translates into the number 666. Also, his name was sometimes given a different spelling which would have been represented as 686. An early transcription of Revelation has been found which uses the number 686, not 666.
I think John of Patmos was writing about his own time, not the future. I'm not sure what the other creatures would have been, but the eagle was the symbol of Rome. Since the Romans would have had access to his writing, which would have been considered heretical by the Romans at the time it was written, he would have had to disguise his ideas in images that his readers would have recognized without specifically identifying the Romans.
2006-07-25 01:31:08 · answer #3 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He will be a man, and most scholers believe from europe. Anti-christ is misleading ina way in the fact that however he is against Christ, he comes to copy him. To set up His kingdome like him. He wont come , at first, as an anti-christ, but a political leader and the one thing that will win people over to him is peace in the middle east. It isnt until rev. 13 that he becomes the beast or anti-christ, cause satan has possesed him, and he is extreamly violent becasue God kicked him completly out of heaven. He is allowed in some parts now but then he wont be able to step foot in the lower levels of heaven. He will be a literal person and will have an evil trinity of his own. If you dont take the bible literal then there is so many ways to interprit it. I dont believe in a literal beast with 7 heads and ten horns but it is figurative of the rage of the anti-christ because satan is in Him.
2006-07-25 04:05:23 · answer #4 · answered by Airman_P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My boss has under no circumstances stated it with me and that i'm specific he does not supply a rip. (Secretly, i've got self belief Aaron interior the subsequent place of work is somewhat the antichrist and only won't fess up. no you may have a table that tousled and nevertheless understand the place each little thing is at and not have something evil happening in there.)
2016-12-10 15:13:16 · answer #5 · answered by spadafora 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Antichrist is a joke, much like the bible and religion.
Mr. Mister is sooooo full of shti!! What a fanatical Christian carbon copy of a Fanatical Muslim!
2006-07-25 01:37:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think anti-christ is someone who is against Christ so that could mean people who have come and gone and someone who is coming or even here now. I think Mr Mister has a good explanation.
2006-07-25 01:29:28 · answer #7 · answered by Godb4me 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are quite a few things in religion which are beyond our comprehension and it is better to leave it at that. But slowly we will come to know the answers to these mysteries as it will get unfolded with the passing of time.
2006-07-25 01:24:39 · answer #8 · answered by tnkumar1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the antichrist is the rising of a group of people who will try and kill all believers and Christians - Jesus himself said that they will come after us and kill us - but we should not be affraid because we are not (from this world and our lustful bodies) if we are in Christ - who can harm out souls?
God bless and give you understanding of this important question!
2006-07-25 02:08:47 · answer #9 · answered by Chellie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just another piece of gibberish from the bible - yet another myth for the deluded to on ranting about. It's like talking about the AntiSantaClaus.
2006-07-25 01:24:31 · answer #10 · answered by Gallivanting Galactic Gadfly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋