President of Israel and the Antichrist

reply to post by Rex282

When John wrote of "antichrist" it meant people "in place of" christ...the anointing .

That could be, if he had written "anti christ".
What he did write was "antichrist" which could mean something different, such as "against Christ".

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Congrats, you've got everyone, from the preterists to the amillenialists arguing now. Good luck finding your answer.

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."

Date of Authorship of 1 John: 60 - 110 CE.

Consult, perhaps your Bible, not Left Behind or Late, Great Planet Earth.

TKDRL
reply to post by Rex282

 

2 billion people claiming to be christ? How is it I don't even know of one of them if there is really that many wackos running around out there?

Yahoshua didn't say they would claim to be "THE christ" but "christ"......Christians

jmdewey60
reply to post by Rex282

 

When John wrote of "antichrist" it meant people "in place of" christ...the anointing .

That could be, if he had written "anti christ".
What he did write was "antichrist" which could mean something different, such as "against Christ".

Jim,
I don't say this to many people however this is very true of you.I have meet very few people that are as ill informed as you are.When you don't agree with a something you make up ways to twist it or completely discard it like you do most of the scriptures.

Seperating the word anti from christ does not change the meaning the way you manipilate it.

ἀντίχριστος
antíxristos /antí, ", in place of" ..xristós, "christ" – ; someone acting in place of christ; "antichrist.

that is the meaning of antichrist without the religious agendas like yours .Please refrain yourself from responding to my posts since I have nothing more to say to your extreme ignorance of any truth.

Rex282
Jim, (...) I have meet very few people that are as ill informed as you are.

Please refrain from namesgiving and petty ad hominem attacks. It serves noone and is no good for nothing....

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Congrats, you've got everyone, from the preterists to the amillenialists arguing now. Good luck finding your answer.

Hehe, so I realised. I actually expected more excessive bible-thumping. Pre-trib'ers aren't what they used to be....

reply to post by Rex282


Ah, I get your drift now. Thanks for clarifying for me

reply to post by Rex282

Seperating the word anti from christ does not change the meaning the way you manipilate it.

I think that you have that backwards.
I would say that it is you who is separating the word in an unnatural sort of way.
The Greeks were really good at coining words (which probably comes from the Greek).
How they would do this was by combining different earlier words together to create a new word.
A common fallacy that novice would-be translators fall into is trying to understand the meaning of a word by reversing the process and looking at the meanings of the component words.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Sadly, most pre-trib dispensationalists (myself being one) are not prepared to answer these questions from the Bible. Instead, we have the bad habit of parroting preconcieved notions from the likes of LaHaye, Hagee, ect.

In my opinion, the Bible gives rules for interpreting itself leaving little room for alternative interpretation. The key is identifying when to take passages at face value, and when to take the figuratively.

jmdewey60
reply to post by Rex282

 

Seperating the word anti from christ does not change the meaning the way you manipilate it.

I think that you have that backwards.
I would say that it is you who is separating the word in an unnatural sort of way.
The Greeks were really good at coining words (which probably comes from the Greek).
How they would do this was by combining different earlier words together to create a new word.
A common fallacy that novice would-be translators fall into is trying to understand the meaning of a word by reversing the process and looking at the meanings of the component words.

You are wrong as usual. I got this from Strongs concordance.Please use your ill informed arguments with them.

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Sadly, most pre-trib dispensationalists (myself being one)

Dispen-whatdidyousay?

In my opinion, the Bible gives rules for interpreting itself leaving little room for alternative interpretation. The key is identifying when to take passages at face value, and when to take the figuratively.

You should really look into the rabbinic concept of Midrash.

reply to post by Rex282

I got this from Strongs concordance.

You should use a lexicon, too, to get more in depth study into word meanings, such as Thayer's.

the adversary of the Messiah, . . .
biblehub.com...

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

Dispen-whatdidyousay?

That is the belief that the purpose of the Rapture is not to save Christians, but to rid the earth of them, so that the world can go on without them, and then the Jews can run everything, supposedly as they had been promised (according to their own mythology).

reply to post by jmdewey60


Holy Jebus! Groundhog century! How creative.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Dispensationalism is the study of the Bible from the perspective that Human history is divided up into Ages or dispensations. These are not astrological ages. In each dispensation, God progressively reveals Himself and His plan in different ways. Dispensationalism is the founding doctrine of Pre-tribulation escatology.

The meter, or the Midrash rhetoric as you call it tracks the changes in dispensations. They follow this sequence: The Age of Eden (prior to the fall), the Antediluvial Age (from Fall to Flood), the Age of Patriarchs (from Flood to Exodus), Age of Israel (From Exodus to Pentacost of 30 AD--this age was paused 7 years before it ended), the Age of the Church (from Pentacost 30 AD to Rapture), then the final 7 years of the Age of Israel AKA the Tribulation (from Rapture to 2nd Coming of Christ), then the Millenial Kingdom (1,000 years of Christ's reign + 50 years of Satan's final Revolt), then the Eternal State (Satan is finally defeated and the Angelic Conflict is resolved).

Today, there are many attempts to discredit dispensationalism by preterists, amillenialists, mid-tribers, post-tribers, whatever, but the truth is that Dispensationalism is proven to be Biblical by the OT and NT meter, and the pre-trib model is the most correct interpretation of the Bible.

You will here anti-dispensationalist spew half-cocked talking points like: "the word rapture is not found in the Bible and is not an early Church concept", "the rapture doctrine comes from a Catholic Prophetess", "the Church has replaced Israel", or " the tribulation was fulfilled in 70 AD". These claims are all riddled with holes and ignore the Bible's poetic flow.

Unfortunately, many Dispensationalists are also Zionists. They are under the delusion that the 1948 establishment of the political state of Israel is somehow fulfillment of prophecy. Its not. The OT prophecies regarding Israel belong to the Age of Israel, so any unfulfilled prophecy concerning Israel must be fulfilled during the Tribulation, not the Church Age. This shows how the Zionist Conspiracy to counterfiet prophecy has infiltrated the heart of modern dispensationalist organizations. Since the bulk of American Christians are Zionist Dispensationalists and this doctrine controls the religious political system, the result is America bending over backwards for the plot of land that the League of Nations deemed to be Israel.

Its disgusting.

No doubt, I will be attacked by dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists alike for my post on the subject. It tends to step on some toes.

Hey Believerpriest:

Can you remind me of the quotation from the Bible that uses the exact words "The Rapture" again? You know, like the blessed event where the Redeemed are gathered in the sky? This wouldn't be any of the verses using harpazo of course, as that word clearly and repeatedly means "to take by force, to abduct" and usually applied to women for the purpose of rapine (the same Latin root as rapture, btw.)

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by St Udio


ran across this report... Netenyahu is desiring that Israel be recognized as a 'Jewish' state...

www.juancole.com...

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is like saying the US is a White State
By Juan Cole | Jan. 6, 2014 |


(By Juan Cole)

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is adding a fifth demand to his negotiations with US Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas: That the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.”

For Netanyahu’s demand to make any sense, he first has to define “Jewish.” “Jewish” has a number of possible meanings. It can mean “those recognized by Talmudic law as members of the Jewish ‘race’ via maternal descent.” The latter is the legal definition of Jewishness in Israeli law itself, and for this reason we must presume that it is what Netanyahu has in mind. It can also mean “adherents of the Judaic religion,” and we can explore those implications, as well....

just some more food-for-thought... on the real Status of 'Israel' and Its' many meanings

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

. . . the Age of the Church (from Pentacost 30 AD to Rapture) . . .

This is the main point of Dispensationalism and where the name comes from, that Christianity is only a temporary "dispensation".

Of course this goes against the whole New Testament and nullifies the very meaning of "New Testament".

Dispensationalism was an adjunct to the zionist agenda and was launched by their agent, John Nelson Darby around 1800, with a lot of financial backing, to soften up Christians to the idea of the Jews taking Palestine for their own, and the ejection of its native population.

BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

The meter, or the Midrash rhetoric as you call it

Well, I believe the 'meter' as you call it, can be explained with what I call 'midraistic rhetoric'. The style in which many of the books in the Bible is written. Midrash is one part of it, but not all. Many Hebrew and Christian texts are built like masonry, one stone upon the other, where every new stone is supported by the others. Complete with pillars, collumns and foundations, arcs, towers, doors and windows. Finding numerical patterns in it wouldn't suprice me, I see several myself. But limiting God by doctrine is fallacy in my opinion. For God moves in mysterious ways, you'll never guess what he's up to next....