The Antichrist Might Be Jewish... Shhh

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='27 October 2009 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1256694082' post='1992477']
The only place where it is taught definitively that the "end of times Antichrist is THE antichrist" is in protestant theologies (right along with the rapture) . Show me where this is taught definitively as Catholic doctrine and I'll be happy to agree.
[/quote]

Traditional Catholic teaching, which has always been taught is Catholic Doctrine. From the Church Fathers on the Church has taught the Antichrist, the Deceiver, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition is the one of the last days.

Dare I say you would have accused many of the Church Fathers of heresy, as well as a great many of the Saints, and Bishops including Cardinal Newman. Who all definitively taught that the "end of times Antichrist is THE antichrist."


"[T]he whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made complete in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and sheep shall be turned into wolves . . . and then shall [b]the deceiver[/b] of the world appear, pretending to be the Son of God, and [he] shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands" (Didache 16:3-4 [A.D. 70]).


Irenaeus


"By means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ" (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

[b]"Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of [u]the[/u] Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected
one. . . . It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved" (ibid., 5:30:2-3). [/b]

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire" (ibid., 5:30:4).



Tertullian


"[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . A[b]ccording indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ [u]the forerunners of Antichrist[/u], who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator"[/b] (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).



I could go on but I don't have the time to waste. Clearly many of the Church Fathers, Bishop, Priests and Saints of the Church have indeed definitively taught that the Antichrist is the Antichrist. They either taught truth or some from of heresy. At least according to the rules you have constructed.

Edited October 28, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='27 October 2009 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1256696681' post='1992502']
Traditional Catholic teaching, which has always been taught is Catholic Doctrine. From the Church Fathers on the Church has taught the Antichrist, the Deceiver, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition is the one of the last days.

Dare I say you would have accused many of the Church Fathers of heresy, as well as a great many of the Saints, and Bishops including Cardinal Newman. Who all definitively taught that the "end of times Antichrist is THE antichrist."


"[T]he whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made complete in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and sheep shall be turned into wolves . . . and then shall [b]the deceiver[/b] of the world appear, pretending to be the Son of God, and [he] shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands" (Didache 16:3-4 [A.D. 70]).


Irenaeus


"By means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ" (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

[b]"Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of [u]the[/u] Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected
one. . . . It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved" (ibid., 5:30:2-3). [/b]

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire" (ibid., 5:30:4).



Tertullian


"[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . A[b]ccording indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ [u]the forerunners of Antichrist[/u], who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator"[/b] (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).



I could go on but I don't have the time to waste. Clearly many of the Church Fathers, Bishop, Priests and Saints of the Church have indeed definitively taught that the Antichrist is the Antichrist. They either taught truth or some from of heresy. At least according to the rules you have constructed.
[/quote]


And from everything you posted here, its clear to me that the Church Fathers are refering to Satan, when speaking of the Anti-Christ, not a human being.

Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='mortify' date='27 October 2009 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1256693664' post='1992474']
It was always around but not as common
[/quote]
Everyone feels that way, but it's never been tabulated.

[Winchester]

...

Edited October 28, 2009 by Winchester

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1256737245' post='1992687']
And from everything you posted here, its clear to me that the Church Fathers are refering to Satan, when speaking of the Anti-Christ, not a human being.

Jim
[/quote]

Satan is not a man. But the Church Fathers refer to the Antichrist as "the [u]Man[/u] of sin."

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 October 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1256751836' post='1992801']
Satan is not a man. But the Church Fathers refer to the Antichrist as "the [u]Man[/u] of sin."
[/quote]


Metaphorically.

Jim

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1256752896' post='1992808']
Metaphorically.

Jim
[/quote]

No sir you are incorrect. Satan is a spirit not a man. Satan may well possess the Antichrist but he will be a man. I'll worry about proving you wrong later. School is more important as of now.

Edited October 28, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

AAUUUGHHH! IT'S NOT SIMPLY ONE MEANING!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1256756629' post='1992846']
AAUUUGHHH! IT'S NOT SIMPLY ONE MEANING!
[/quote]

How bout you claim the heck down. If the only way you can argue is all caps, which is misrepresentation of what I've said, perhaps you should bow out.

Your argument is invalid, I've already tried to explain to you that it is not one dimensional thinking. One dimensional would say that Saint John in no way fashion or form meant or used Nero as an example of the Antichrist. But Saint John did indeed used Nero as an example of an Antichrist. Because Nero was a forerunner to, a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, and an Antichrist himself.

Edited October 29, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 October 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1256775060' post='1992967']
How bout you [s]claim [/s] calm the heck down. If the only way you can argue is all caps, which is misrepresentation of what I've said, perhaps you should bow out.

Your argument is invalid, I've already tried to explain to you that it is not one dimensional thinking. One dimensional would say that Saint John in no way fashion or form meant or used Nero as an example of the Antichrist. But Saint John did indeed used Nero as an example of an Antichrist. Because Nero was a forerunner to, a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, and an Antichrist himself.
[/quote]
You're a sensitive one, aren't ya.

I used all-caps one time, and you defecate all over yourself about it.

St. John spoke literally of him as the anti-Christ using symbolism. There's also other levels of meaning. It does not take away that it is, historically, about Nero.

Quite amazing literature, The Apocalypse.


QUITE AMAZING INDEED.

[mortify]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1256737329' post='1992690']
Everyone feels that way, but it's never been tabulated.
[/quote]

cf [u]Leading index of Catholic indicators[/u]

[mortify]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1256737245' post='1992687']
And from everything you posted here, its clear to me that the Church Fathers are refering to Satan, when speaking of the Anti-Christ, not a human being.

Jim
[/quote]

The Antichrist is a human being, not Satan.

[mortify]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1256784658' post='1993083']
St. John spoke literally of him as the anti-Christ using symbolism. There's also other levels of meaning. It does not take away that it is, historically, about Nero.
[/quote]

You need to put down your NAB Bible Commentary

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' date='28 October 2009 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1256784658' post='1993083']
St. John spoke literally of him as the anti-Christ using symbolism. There's also other levels of meaning. It does not take away that it is, historically, about Nero.
[/quote]

This is the way modern liberal theology twist the Traditional Teaching that St. John used Nero as a example of what the Antichrist will be, because Nero was a Antichrist. Saint John used Nero as an example the people of the time would understand. If Saint John were alive in 1942 he would have used Hitler or some other fascist leader of that time, as an example of a Antichrist. It is true that the Apocalypse is historical, as well as universal in time. But St. John did not speak literally of Nero as the Antichrist using symbolism. St. John spoke literally of the Antichrist using Nero as symbolism, or the people's knowledge of Nero, since Nero was a forerunner of Antichrist.

Edited October 29, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='28 October 2009 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1256737245' post='1992687']
And from everything you posted here, its clear to me that the Church Fathers are refering to Satan, when speaking of the Anti-Christ, not a human being.
Jim
[/quote]

From almost everything he posted, it is clear that the Church Fathers are not referring to Satan.

[quote]"For he, being endued with [b]all the power of the devil[/b], shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . ."
[/quote]

If he were referring to Satan, it would be as though Irenaeus were saying, "Satan, being endued with all the power of Satan . . ." Unlikely.

[quote]"[b]Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist."[/b][/quote][b]

[/b] The name of the Antichrist? Would it not simply be "Lucifer?" Maybe even "Jack Flash?" It seems as though if presumption of his name is an issue, it really is a human whose acquaintance we've not yet made.

[quote]"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending [b]this man[/b] and those who follow him into the lake of fire."
[/quote]

Not "this angel," not "this demon," or "satan," but "this man."

[quote][b]many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved"[/b][/quote]

Irenaeus is here speaking of "the name of the number," the number being 666, of which John said in Revelation, "it is the number of [b]a man.[/b]"

[quote][b]the forerunners of Antichrist, [/b][/quote]

Who was the "forerunner" of the Father of Lies?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 31, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Antigonos]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='26 October 2009 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1256510528' post='1991212']
Satan is not the Anti-Christ.
He may be [i]an[/i] anti-Christ, but the Anti-Christ is/will be an entirely separate entity.
[/quote]

Can you provide a textual reference that states that?

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='24 October 2009 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1256371697' post='1990590']


[i]but the idea of the anti-Christ coming from the tribe of Dan is possible. The lineages are certainly not traceable these days to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it won't happen that way. [/i]

Anybody or anything being of the tribe of Dan today is impossible, because the tribe of Dan disappeared in the Sixth Pre-Christian Century, being one of the "Ten Lost Tribes" which were taken into captivity by the Assyrians, and were totally assimilated before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BC. The only tribal identifications of Jews today are [1] the priestly caste (cohanim), [2] the Temple assistants (levites), both descended from the family of Moses and his brother Aaron [the tribe is a branch of Levi], and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which are collectively known as "Israel". Judah, of course, supplied the monarchy in the days of the Davidic Kingdom, and, for Jews, will supply the Messiah. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

[mortify]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='07 November 2009 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1257611102' post='1997727']
Anybody or anything being of the tribe of Dan today is impossible, because the tribe of Dan disappeared in the Sixth Pre-Christian Century, being one of the "Ten Lost Tribes" which were taken into captivity by the Assyrians, and were totally assimilated before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BC.
[/quote]

It's not hard to imagine that the remnants of such a tribe survived after being conquered and were dispersed among other peoples and even among other Jewish tribes. There may very well be Jews today who are unaware of such a descent, and there may even be people of apparent non-Jewish origin who are of such a descent. This note in wikipedia about the "Ten Lost Tribes" might be of some interest but I haven't been able to investigate them so I can't verify the claim:

[color="#0000FF"][i]Brit-Am, sometimes confused with British Israelism, is an organization centered in Jerusalem, and composed of Jews and non-Jews. Brit-Am, like British Israel, identifies the Lost Ten Tribes with peoples of West European descent, but does so from a Jewish perspective quoting both Biblical and Rabbinical sources. The evidence that Brit-Am relies upon is Biblical in the light of Rabbinical Commentary but is supplemented by secular theories which posit the Lost Tribes / Scythian / Cimmerian connection which they then believe to have become various Western European nations.[32] An example of Brit-Am scholarship may be seen from its treatment of Obadiah 1:20[33] where the original Hebrew as understood by Rabbinical Commentators such as Rashi and Abarbanel is referring to the Lost Ten Tribes in France and England.[34] [u]Brit-Am also believes that "Other Israelite Tribes gave rise to elements within Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Wales, France, Holland, and Belgium" and that "The Tribe of Dan is to be found amongst part of the Danish, Irish, and Welsh."[/u][/i][/color]

Edited November 29, 2009 by mortify

[Seven77]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='07 November 2009 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1257611102' post='1997727']
[quote name='Aloysius' date='24 October 2009 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1256371697' post='1990590']


[i]but the idea of the anti-Christ coming from the tribe of Dan is possible. The lineages are certainly not traceable these days to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it won't happen that way. [/i]

Anybody or anything being of the tribe of Dan today is impossible, because the tribe of Dan disappeared in the Sixth Pre-Christian Century, being one of the "Ten Lost Tribes" which were taken into captivity by the Assyrians, and were totally assimilated before the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BC. The only tribal identifications of Jews today are [1] the priestly caste (cohanim), [2] the Temple assistants (levites), both descended from the family of Moses and his brother Aaron [the tribe is a branch of Levi], and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which are collectively known as "Israel". Judah, of course, supplied the monarchy in the days of the Davidic Kingdom, and, for Jews, will supply the Messiah. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.
[/quote]

Antigonos, that was what i was thinking; Dan was completely assimilated...in addition, sn't it indicated in Scripture that Dan began to drift away b/c they were seafarers?

Technically,, only members of Judah are Jewish (historically).

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mortify' date='29 November 2009 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1259515549' post='2011089']
It's not hard to imagine that the remnants of such a tribe survived after being conquered and were dispersed among other peoples and even among other Jewish tribes. There may very well be Jews today who are unaware of such a descent, and there may even be people of apparent non-Jewish origin who are of such a descent. This note in wikipedia about the "Ten Lost Tribes" might be of some interest but I haven't been able to investigate them so I can't verify the claim:

[color="#0000FF"][i]Brit-Am, sometimes confused with British Israelism, is an organization centered in Jerusalem, and composed of Jews and non-Jews. Brit-Am, like British Israel, identifies the Lost Ten Tribes with peoples of West European descent, but does so from a Jewish perspective quoting both Biblical and Rabbinical sources. The evidence that Brit-Am relies upon is Biblical in the light of Rabbinical Commentary but is supplemented by secular theories which posit the Lost Tribes / Scythian / Cimmerian connection which they then believe to have become various Western European nations.[32] An example of Brit-Am scholarship may be seen from its treatment of Obadiah 1:20[33] where the original Hebrew as understood by Rabbinical Commentators such as Rashi and Abarbanel is referring to the Lost Ten Tribes in France and England.[34] [u]Brit-Am also believes that "Other Israelite Tribes gave rise to elements within Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Wales, France, Holland, and Belgium" and that "The Tribe of Dan is to be found amongst part of the Danish, Irish, and Welsh."[/u][/i][/color]
[/quote]
So the Antichrist might be Jewish because he's Danish, Irish, or Welsh. got it

O'bama seems like an Irish name. So clearly O'Bama must be Irish. Which means he's probably Jewish. I think I've just proven it!! AHHH