Was the concept of Antichrist introduced for the Christian churc to continue its reign on hypocracy and dogma?

Question

As we all know bible has been edited a lot of times. The concept of Antichrist has given severel advantages to church. In US Chrsitians used to justify slavery with the help of bible. Various Christian teachers and sects have taught that Africans were the descendents of Ham, cursed to be servant to the descendents of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians). In 19th century United States, so many Baptists in southern states supported slavery that the Baptist convention split into northern and southern branches. Similar theological justifications were offered for apartheid in 20th century South Africa.
Meanwhile since atheists and freethinkers knew bible was fraud they were against slavery. At that time people could be asked nott o listen to them since they were Antichrists. If atheists run a charitable organisation like done by Mother Terasa it would give a good name to atheists. At that time Christians could criticize them that Antichrist would do 7 years of charitable work before

showing his true nature. Did the church invent that concept for this reason?

Answer 1

OF COURSE IT WAS! DON'T YOU KNOW IT WAS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP??? WHY DO YOU ASK QUESTIONS YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO??? WHAT NEXT, ARE YOU GOING TO ASK IS THE SKY BLUE??? STOP THESE DUMB INTERNET GAMES AND BEGIN ORGANIZING THE ATHEIST REVOLUTION FOR REAL!!! DESTROY ALL RELIGIONS!!!

Answer 2

not all Christian churches believe this concept of the anti Christ.
I think you better investigate the differences in the Protestant and Catholic Faiths and see that there is a big difference in belief

You don't know what you are talking about when you lump everyone in one group..I was a Lutheran since 1945 and we never gave that Antichrist talk much credence
believe what you want but learn the facts before you make a fool out of yourself..i think you have a lot of growing up to do but nobody is getting the message right anyway. God is Love ...Period .........I think God in heaven is wondering what has become of his creation...we sure are a sorry lot on earth..

Answer 3

Why don't YOU read 1 John and 2 John and tell us?
It is incredible that you can blame Christians for slavery, they were the ones who worked tirelessly to end it. You seem to be seriously deluded on just about every topic. Antichrist is someone who would usurp the dignity and deny Christ. You seem to be doing a pathetic job, though. And your Athiests are the only good people schtick, just don't fly.

Answer 4

Christians ran the underground railroad that smuggled slaves into free states in the 1860's. In England it was one man who ended slavery. His name was William Wilberforce. He spent his life putting an end to slavery. He was a very committed christian and his life long fight against slavery was based upon his faith in Christ. By the way, what charitable organizations are run by atheists? I don't think I've ever heard of any.

Answer 5

No, the anti-christ will be a very real person. I think if you go to the Southern Baptist Church that I attend you will find many different races in that church. Your reasoning is filled with holes.

Answer 6

& hypocracy and dogma & spelling errors ignored & reign of terror & way too much time on my hands & the closet needs to be cleaned out & Baptists and Baptist convention & The Happy Atheist and all the screaming and yelling & The Atheist Revolution & The revolution will not be televised & my televison is broke so I preach to people and it's not even really a question.& 7 years of community service.

Answer 7

to make the christian church appear as having an evil anti. and appear oppressed

Answer 8

No, the church did NOT create antichrist as a scare tactic, or anything else. This is a common question of non-believers, and the following will address it in better detail. This is because it addresses the other thing you said, "As we all know bible has been edited a lot of times". This is a true statement to a point, but when you use the statement to say that the Bible has actually been altered many times, you are wrong dear.

These are the facts about the Bible and how it has AND has not changed, over the course of so many years since it was first put on the original scrolls:

Old TestamentHow do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.

New TestamentIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."

With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

VIRGINIANS STARTED SLAVERY:
[Nowhere does it say they were Christians, it simply says they were Virginians. If you have to blame someone, you should blame the Virginians who were alive back then. Not Christians all over the world, who had nothing to do with it and are alive today.]
Slavery originally started in America by the deportation of “restless roistering rogues” from England to Virginia. Morgan writes, “England kept them down by the workhouse, by the gallows, by whipping them back to the parish they came from, by sending them off on military expeditions—and by shipping them to Virginia.” When these men were sent over to America they had to work and received little pay. Edmund explains that the Virginians found out a way to cheat the workers. They created an artificial scarcity of land, which meant that the workers who were in servitude waiting to be freemen had no where to live so they went back into servitude. They also took off as much as they could off the workers profits through rents, taxes, and fees for the benefits of the burgesses, councilors and collectors. But by doing this, Morgan believes, put colonies at constant risk of rebellion. As the years went on workers began to get pushed more and more to make profits for who ever it is they have been serving, and Virginia moved closer to slavery than ever.

Answer 9

it has many version some pl said antichrist is a person and some said is an regime
many intepretation

Answer 10

yes you have a good guy you need a bad guy to evan things up