Could the Antichrist be the Islamic Mahdi?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Parson

Hi Bro Blume!

The man of sin, son of perdition, and the Anti-Christ are only terms for the same individual.

I know the idea. I preached it for years. lol. I am just saying THE ANTICHRIST is a misnomer. There is no THE antichrist in the bible except for THE SPIRIT of that nature.

You will have to admit that the MAN OF SIN would indeed be an anti-christ.

YES! "AN" Antichirst. Definitely.

The problem with preterism is that they cannot find a fulfillment of this individual....this anti-christ, man of son, son of perdition.

Preterism? That is not the issue. It's not even the problem related to the issue. The issue is the title of the beast or the man of sin. Nothing indicates the beast is the man of sin, and nothing indicates either are THE antichrist. (And Bro., you have not heard all the answers provided, anyway). But we DO know there is no "THE" antichrist. It's nothing to do with preterism. It's just a matter of biblical terms and their intended meanings in lieu of what John actually said.

I disagree with those that try to place an face on this man. But that is another story.

The ISBE staes this: The reason why each age has had its fresh interpretation identifying the man of sin with the blasphemous powers of evil then most active is the fact that the prophecy has never yet found its complete accomplishment. The man of sin has never been fully revealed, and Christ has never finally destroyed him.

One may ignore the term anti-christ in favor of man of sin...but you cannot ignore that this individual is yet in our future.

That opens up a whole different ball of wax. You know how I honestly feel about that. What has that issue got to do with TERMS used, as Bro Hall and I discussed? Would you change the nature of this topic? As I informed Bro Hall, the issue of WHEN is not necessary to mention whatsoever!

2 Thes. 2:9 (NIV)
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,


2 Thes. 2:9-10 (NRSV)
The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, [10] and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.


2 Thes. 2:9-10 (NASB)
that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, [10] and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

None of these things occurred in 70
AD.

We could take weeks to discuss this again, bro. As I said, AD70 is not the issue, and not required in determining whether or not the beast is "the antichrist". But for some reason you insist on speaking of futurism vs. preterism here. I am not against that, but why here in this thread?

Also, Bro Blume, please compare this scripture with your 1 John passage.

2 Thes. 2:7 (NIV)
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.


or for the purists--------2 Thes. 2:7 (KJV)
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Paul stated that AN INDIVIDUAL would come in the spirit of iniquity. John stated the same thing....in a different verbage. Spirit of Anti-Christ---spirit of lawlessness---it is the same thing.

John said the SPIRIT of antichrist was in the world. He said that it was the "last time" in his day, due to the fact that manyh antichrists, not one, were present.

1Jo 2:18 KJV Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Like Nathaniel Urshan said, "The apostles THOUGHT they were in the last days. But WE KNOW we are in the last days." Who was right? Nathaniel or John?

(CEV) Children, this is the last hour. You heard that the enemy of Christ would appear at this time, and many of Christ's enemies have already appeared. So we know that the last hour is here.

And please note

THE enemy of Christ---and not just AN enemy of Christ.

THE CEV is a far cry from an scholarly translation. Case in point: "hoti" in the phrase "hoti antichristos" is not THE, as in THE ENEMY as the CEV would like to imply, but rather a demonstrative term using the sense BECAUSE OF.

G3754
ὅτι
hoti
hot'-ee
Neuter of G3748 as conjugation; demonstrative that (sometimes redundant); causatively because: - as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though, why.

We cannot favour a "version's" rendition of something only to prove our point, without ensuring the accuracy the translation is not under question. But many people certainly do choose to quote certain translations other than the KJV in less favor for the manner in which the KJV says something that may appear to endanger their view.

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Note that antichrist is singular....not plural.

Where did they hear it? Jesus! Jesus said "MANY shall come in my name". "False Christs and false prophets shall rise". Paul told about men arising in Acts 20:30, saying "shall MEN arise". John explains the idea and says that there were MANY ANTICHRISTS in fulfillment of the idea that "antichrist shall come". But the plainest statement which is always avoided here, even in this thread, is that it is specifically a spirit that denies Jesus came in flesh.

The teaching was that ONE would come who was THE ENEMY of Christ---and this spirit was prevailing during their time....as there were many who were anti-christ.

Not so fast, bro. It is an interpretation to say ONE would come. Some have stated that John CORRECTED the notion of ONE coming, by saying rather there are many. Others have stated that the SPIRIT is the ONE antichrist coming, manifested in MANY MEN. And your interpretation is that ONE MAN would come. It does not say the ONE would be a MAN, though. That must be read into the text with a dependent background of the doctrine that there will be ONE called THE antichrist. I have the authority of John's further statement saying ONE SPIRIT is highlighted behind the entire term. Unfortunately, you have no explicit ONE MAN written anywhere in explicit conjunction with antichirst, specifically.

Whose version is correct? Seeing what the rest of scripture said about the isse is the only way to solve it.

Call him what you will.......but he is in our future...

Nobody here was ever talking about WHEN he would come. Of course it is known I am partial preterist, but neither Bro Hall nor myself engaged that issue in the entire thread. It's not the point. If you want to discuss preterism versus futurism again, that is your prerogative. But I would think that would suit another thread. But whether future or not, the POINT is that THE ANTICHRIST is not biblical in thinking of the man of sin. Nothing tells us the man of sin is THE antichrist, except some people's interpretations.

God bless!

[Parson]

Hi Bro Blume

What has that issue got to do with TERMS used, as Bro Hall and I discussed?

My response deal with the fact that you claim the Anti-Christ is a misnomer. I am showing that the Anti-Christ is more than just a vague description for the Spirit of Wickness.

As I pointed out—and you agree (YES! "AN" Antichirst. Definitely.) that the MAN OF SIN would be an anti-Christ…as he opposes God.

But what you overlook is the fact that this individual is call THAT man of sin and not A man of sin. He is not a spirit as the Greek word is anthrōpos which means a human being, whether male or female.
He is given clear and distinctive title that separates him from other vile and evil men of history.
Some of those titles, according to differing versions are:
THE man of sin
THE wicked one
THE lawlessness one

It is very important to note that Paul described A particular person that would be easily identified by certain attributes. His actions and demeanor elevates his status from just a MERE anti-Christ—as there were many that opposed God to THE anti-Christ.

One of the distinguishing acts of this ANTI-CHRIST is that he sets himself up in the temple of God—proclaiming that he is God.

Again, I point out that this action makes him MORE than just AN anti-Christ because his actions mark the 2nd Coming of Christ.

2 Thes. 2:3 (KJV)
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that this “AN ANTI-CHRIST” heralds the COMING OF CHRIST, makes him a sign or signal that everyone is carefully looking to see come to pass.

I hope that I am being clear. There have been many anti-Christ, and we will see many more anti-christs, but there is only ONE—ANTI-CHRIST—that will herald the Coming of Christ and that is why we call him THE anti-Christ.

There have been MANY sons of perdition—such as Judas.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

But none of these, including Judas, herald the 2nd Coming of Christ.

We agree that there are MANY anti-Christs that oppose God. But none of these mark the 2nd Coming.

We are looking for THE anti-Christ that WILL herald Christ’s Coming. That distinction makes this anti-Christ—THE Anti-Christ.

He—this Anti-Christ that heralds Christ’s 2nd Coming—is NOT a misnomer.

Preterism? That is not the issue. It's not even the problem related to the issue.

I am not saying that preterism is the issue. I am saying that preterism does not find a fulfillment in this ANTI-CHRIST that heralds the second coming of Christ.

What has that issue got to do with TERMS used, as Bro Hall and I discussed? Would you change the nature of this topic?

Again, you dismissed the term Anti-Christ as a misnomer…my response was simply to show that THE ANTI-CHRIST is a term that is correct as this ANTI-CHRIST marks the 2nd Coming. I have no intention to change the topic of the thread.

Some have stated that John CORRECTED the notion of ONE coming, by saying rather there are many. Others have stated that the SPIRIT is the ONE antichrist coming, manifested in MANY MEN. And your interpretation is that ONE MAN would come

It is not MY interpretation. Paul calls him THAT MAN OF SIN….other versions state THE man of sin.

Some have stated that John CORRECTED the notion of ONE coming,

CORRECTED???????

That would mean Paul was INCORRECT in his teachings!!!!!!

2 Thes. 2:5 (KJV) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

That would mean that the Bible has ERRORS, and that it is NOT infallible…without error!!!


Paul and John did not disagree on ONE that would come. As I have stated, they said the same thing—just in a different manner.

Thanks for allowing me to clear up the matter of ANTI-CHRIST.

Please carry on with the original topic!!

Blessings

Parson

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Parson

Hi Bro Blume

My response deal with the fact that you claim the Anti-Christ is a misnomer. I am showing that the Anti-Christ is more than just a vague description for the Spirit of Wickness.

Who said it was vague? It is a spirit that distinctly denies Jesus came in flesh. Tha is not vague. This has nothing to do with the man of sin proved to be THE antichrist, though. The only vagueness would be how denying Jesus came in flesh is associated with a son of perdition who sets himself up as God.

As I pointed out—and you agree (YES! "AN" Antichirst. Definitely.) that the MAN OF SIN would be an anti-Christ…as he opposes God.

The concept of opposing God is also VERY vague in light of what John said about denying Jesus came in flesh. An explanation is necessary,

But what you overlook is the fact that this individual is call THAT man of sin and not A man of sin.

I do not overlook this at all. THE SON of perdition is biblical. THE antichrist is not. Simple. It's as simple as saying "The bible never used the term THE antichrist in speaking in 2 Thess 2 nor Rev 13. How much simpler can it get? In effect you have been taking a complete misnomer that was originally made by people not careful enough to notice that Paul never even used the term ANTICHRIST, and called the man of sin "THE ANTICHRIST", and you have made a veritable college degree course on that silly mistake, as though it was factual.

Only those who simply fight for the notion that there is THE antichrist coming would agree to that extent. You are simply convinced the doctrine to which you adhere, and ALL its details, cannot be wrong. You have nto stopped to actually CONSIDER that the title THE ANTICHRIST cannot be applied to 2 Thess 2.

He is not a spirit as the Greek word is anthrōpos which means a human being, whether male or female.

I never said he was a "spirit" in 2 Thess. This conversation is straying due to your misunderstanding of the points I was making. Sorry for lack of clarity. I never said anything about the son of perdition being a spirit.

He is given clear and distinctive title that separates him from other vile and evil men of history.

Some of those titles, according to differing versions are:
THE man of sin
THE wicked one
THE lawlessness one

Agreed. I have no problem with that. Never did.

It is very important to note that Paul described A particular person that would be easily identified by certain attributes. His actions and demeanor elevates his status from just a MERE anti-Christ—as there were many that opposed God to THE anti-Christ.

No. He is not THE antichrist. he is "THE man of sin" and "THE son of perdition". Sure. But where is the emphasis put upon denying Jesus came in flesh in the entire context of 2 Thess? It is not there. And yet THAT is the very definition John gave for the antichrist. It can only vaguely be tied.

One of the distinguishing acts of this ANTI-CHRIST is that he sets himself up in the temple of God—proclaiming that he is God.

Not The antichrist. There is no THE antichrist except a spirit.

Again, I point out that this action makes him MORE than just AN anti-Christ because his actions mark the 2nd Coming of Christ.

2 Thes. 2:3 (KJV)
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

You are again straying from the issue at hand about terms.

I hope that I am being clear. There have been many anti-Christ, and we will see many more anti-christs, but there is only ONE—ANTI-CHRIST—that will herald the Coming of Christ and that is why we call him THE anti-Christ.

Again you use incorrect terms. There is no "THE" antichrist in the form of a man mentioned in scripture. But you can believe there is if you wish.

There have been MANY sons of perdition—such as Judas.
But none of these, including Judas, herald the 2nd Coming of Christ.

We agree that there are MANY anti-Christs that oppose God. But none of these mark the 2nd Coming.

And getting back to the point, there is no "THE antichrist" in the form of a man in scripture.

I am not saying that preterism is the issue. I am saying that preterism does not find a fulfillment in this ANTI-CHRIST that heralds the second coming of Christ.

You make preterism an issue that is not in the issue at hand by bringing in something about the idea of fulfillment. That was not the topic of discussion. But, like I said, you can start a new thread on THAT issue if you wish. I was sticking with Bro Hall's point. Due to your straying thoughts, we now have more posts on this issue than Bro Hall's original point. lol

Again, you dismissed the term Anti-Christ as a misnomer…my response was simply to show that THE ANTI-CHRIST is a term that is correct as this ANTI-CHRIST marks the 2nd Coming. I have no intention to change the topic of the thread.

Sorry. Your entire basis is wrong in saying there is "THE antichrist."

Brother, let me try it from this angle: ANTICHRIST is a term that indicates someone (spirit or man) who is AGAINST CHRIST. And this includes the concept of AN ALTERNATIVE CHRIST in contrast tro the genuine Christ. Anyone who professes THEY are Christ could correctly be called antichrist for the simple fact that they are not the actual Christ. THAT is how 2 Thess 2 comes into play. Although you never detailed that thought. You remained vague in the connection. But neither John nor Paul called this son of perdition "THE antichrist," as though he heads up all other forms of antichrist. That is your assumption based upon your tradition. And you are very good at proposing a tradition.

With that definition in mind, John Levi certainly fits. He called himself the saviour! I am not saying concretely he was the son of perdition, though. But I am saying you cannot say he does not fit the bill because he consciously said nothing about the actual Christ.

It is not MY interpretation. Paul calls him THAT MAN OF SIN….other versions state THE man of sin.

No one is arguing that. You are not getting the point. The point is that neither Paul nor John called the man of sin and the son of perdition by the title "The Antichrist". That is all.

CORRECTED???????

That would mean Paul was INCORRECT in his teachings!!!!!!

How on earth did you ever arrive at the conclusion that my thought about John's words -- (1Jo 2:18 KJV Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.) -- were ever ANYTHING to do with correcting Paul??????????

This is getting way out there, bro. I actually said that John's words may have been correcting a general opinon that was floating around saing that there was a certain ANTICHRIST that would come, without any thought of, nor connection with, Paul's words in 2 Thess 2. How i n the world did you connect what Paul said with what I said about John's correction? Please show me in my own words, because I never heard of that, let alone tried it. lol. I said John may have been correcting a popular opinion, apart from anything Paul said, or may have thought of the SPIRIT of Antichrist (the only THE antichrist we can derive from his epistle), while you said John spoke of a single MAN.

That would mean that the Bible has ERRORS, and that it is NOT infallible…without error!!!

Not it would not mean that since that was NOT my point at all. I did not say John was correcting anything in scripture. LOL. He may have been correcting a popular notion floating around.

Deja Vu. Brother, we always had this problem. How many times have you thought I was saying something that I never said at all? Recall I told you that I had more problems relating thoughts to you than anyone else since you always got my points mixed up and related them back to me incorrectly.

Paul and John did not disagree on ONE that would come. As I have stated, they said the same thing—just in a different manner.

Incorrect. John said a particular SPIRIT would come. He said that in chapter 4 of his first epistle, after speaking of people having heard of "antichrist" coming in the second chapter.

Thanks for allowing me to clear up the matter of ANTI-CHRIST.

Please carry on with the original topic!!

Blessings

Parson

I am unsure as to why a perosn would think they cleared up an issue, without all parties agreeing. If one party disagreed, then something was not cleared up in the context of two discussing. Unless one is simply trying to convince others they are right and the other is wrong --> i.e., case closed.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Sorry, Bro Hall. I apologize for myself and Parson.

Take care.

PS. Parson, you never continued our chats on my forum about prophecy. We waited for your response and never got one, in the end.

[Parson]

PS. Parson, you never continued our chats on my forum about prophecy. We waited for your response and never got one, in the end.

Rather than continue the discussion of the AC on this thread--I will start another thread in Deep Water section.

This will leave this thread available fro Bro Hall's question.

As for not getting back to the discussion on your forum....I have just completed a major project (wiring, air conditioning, and plumbing) in my wife's new home.

We still have a long way to go...but I needed to kick back for a few days and catch my breath.

Our discussions are always enjoyable. If you remember what we were discussing---I will be happy to continue it!!

As for each of missing each others points---or at least my missing of your points....

I use the same rules that one follows in reading any written material. Unless the context states a metaphor ect, I take what is written to mean what it says....literally.

Paul's teaching covered the Gentile churches...You will remember that he has a book addressed to the Ephesians. (John writes to the Ephesian church in Revelation)

Paul taught that ONE was coming that would herald the 2nd Coming of Christ....not many.

It was to this I made reference. John would be teaching something, according to your interpretation that Paul opposed.

Until the other thread

Blessings


Parson

[mfblume]

Hi Parson,

When you departed from my forum I did not know the reason. Thanks for the note! I have it all on my forum, as far as knowing what it was about, and continuing it is concerned.

The entire issue of 2 Thess 2 being about the second coming is at great debate anyway, as you already know.

God bless!

[TRFrance]

I dont know why folks have to quibble at such length over whether we should refer to him as an antichrist or the antichrist. Indeed, the man of sin is "an" antichrist, and some would debate over wheter we should refer to him as "the" antichrist. Does it really matter that much?

It is simply using a commonly accepted term to describe something/someone. Even if the Bible doesnt specifically refer to him as "the" antichrist, I dont see what the problem is if some saints refer to him as such.

For example, we commonly refer to the "rapture" even though that word isnt found in the bible. Even the greek word there, harpazo, literally means
"forcibly snatched away", "taken for oneself".

But just because the word "rapture" isnt in the bible, but do we spend a lot of time telling people not to use it? Of course not. As long as those who use it know what's being referred to, it shouldnt really matter that much.

Similarly, if prophecy watchers choose to refer to the "man of sin" as "THE antichrist" as a way of distinguishing him from the many other "antichrists" , why is that such an issue? I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[mizpeh]

But each smaller truth leads to understanding a greater truth.

Line upon line precept upon precept. If one of the underlying lines is false then the mountain that sits upon it is ruined.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I dont know why folks have to quibble at such length over whether we should refer to him as an antichrist or the antichrist. Indeed, the man of sin is "an" antichrist, and some would debate over wheter we should refer to him as "the" antichrist. Does it really matter that much?

It is simply using a commonly accepted term to describe something/someone. Even if the Bible doesnt specifically refer to him as "the" antichrist, I dont see what the problem is if some saints refer to him as such.

For example, we commonly refer to the "rapture" even though that word isnt found in the bible. Even the greek word there, harpazo, literally means
"forcibly snatched away", "taken for oneself".

But just because the word "rapture" isnt in the bible, but do we spend a lot of time telling people not to use it? Of course not. As long as those who use it know what's being referred to, it shouldnt really matter that much.

Similarly, if prophecy watchers choose to refer to the "man of sin" as "THE antichrist" as a way of distinguishing him from the many other "antichrists" , why is that such an issue? I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

It is because antichirst is specifically defined by John as denying Jesus ca,e in flesh. And this element, being THE element of the term, is missed when people casually throw a misnomer on something.

[ChristopherHall]

With all due respects....none of this Preterism vs. Futurism debate addresses the issue.

It's obvious that Islam has an eschatological view point that is essentially the flip side of the Futurist eschatology in Christianity. Obviously Satan, the author of Islam, is preparing Muslims for a future Tribulation, Mahdi, and global expansion of Islam while many of us are claiming that the Tribulation is past and that there isn't a future Antichrist who will rise and attempt to rule the world, subjugate Christians, and murder the Jews before the literal return of Christ.

This movement and expectant Antichrist (al Mahdi) is real. Over 3,000 innocent Americans died at the hands of his followers on 9/11. And the most extensive deployment of US military forces since WWII is on the ground in the Middle East engaging this foe as we speak. Whatever one's personal interpretation of eschatology is...it doesn't trump reality.

Over a billion people are believing that al Mahdi is coming. Hundreds of thousands are preparing themselves to die for him. Millions in the wealthiest nations on earth are financially supporting them. Will he be the final Antichrist and fulfill what is expected of him in the Bible as he attempts to fulfill his Islamic mandate?

Please gentlemen, stay on topic.

[Praxeas]

I believe this Mahdi will coincide with the Jews expectation for the Messiah and some Christians expectation for the return of Christ.

I also have always expected that Jerusalem will be divided into Jewish, Christian and Islamic sections.

At one time the RCC wanted to relocate there and they claim it as a Holy site. The jews as the place of their temple and the Muslims for the DOTR and their claims that Muhammed was taken up into Heaven on a white horse there.

The so called "Anti-Christ" or beast or false prophet or whoever, could very well be this Islamic "messiah"

I thought the beast was a system or a conglomorate of nations