Who Else (Non-KJVO) Does Not Believe There Will Be An Antichrist?

[Unbound68]

I stay with the majority texts

No you don’t.

1. The Johannine Comma is not in the majority of anything.

2. The KJV doesn't always follow the Majority Text (calligraphic “M” in any apparatus).

3. Revelation 16:5 (and shalt be) and 17:8 (and yet is) don’t appear in a majority of anything prior to the KJV because the readings were created in the 16th century.

4. The KJV doesn’t even place all of God’s inspired words within the text of the KJV, and the KJV translators admitted it.

 

[Leatherneck0311]

No you don’t.

1. The Johannine Comma is not in the majority of anything.

2. The KJV doesn't always follow the Majority Text (calligraphic “M” in any apparatus).

3. Revelation 16:5 (and shalt be) and 17:8 (and yet is) don’t appear in a majority of anything prior to the KJV because the readings were created in the 16th century.

4. The KJV doesn’t even place all of God’s inspired words within the text of the KJV, and the KJV translators admitted it.

They are called “majority texts” for a reason just as the “ minority texts” are called minority texts for a reason. You aren’t using logic you’re using hit and run and smoke and mirrors as a tactic.

 

[Unbound68]

They are called “majority texts” for a reason

What is that reason?

just as the “ minority texts” are called minority texts for a reason.

What is that reason?

You aren’t using logic

We’ll see about that.

you’re using hit and run and smoke and mirrors as a tactic.

How is any of what I provided “hit and run” (I’m not going anywhere) or “smoke and mirrors?”

Were you even aware of the facts I listed? Are you knowledgeable enough on the issue to even address them?

 

[Shoonra]

The so-called Majority Text is made up of a collection of relatively late medieval mss -- mostly from just before the Crusades. They are not as old as the ancient sources used by Westcott & Hort or Nestle ("Critical Text"), which are numerically fewer but exhibit fewer accumulated errors and variants. Calling the later manuscripts the "Majority" is misleading and suggests some sort of voting among manuscripts. The Textus Receptus consists of late medieval mss, even later than the "Majority" and has even more accumulated errors and variants.

 

[Shoonra]

With regard to the original topic of this thread (namely, the Antichrist), I have found the Book of Revelation a tough read, and would like some guidance:
Is the Antichrist a natural person or a supernatural creature?
Is the Antichrist the same as the Great Beast or are they two distinct villains?

 

[christ_undivided]

With regard to the original topic of this thread (namely, the Antichrist), I have found the Book of Revelation a tough read, and would like some guidance:
Is the Antichrist a natural person or a supernatural creature?
Is the Antichrist the same as the Great Beast or are they two distinct villains?

There are many varying opinions. Revelation is one of the last books generally accepted in most any canonical list. It has long been disputed. Especially in the west. Thomas Jefferson considered it impossible to understand. The prolific writer/commentator John Calvin never wrote about Revelations. There has probably been more saints of God separate from one another over the words found in Revelation than most any other book found in the Bible.

Granted.... there has be significant money made on "book series" from it....

I recommend that every single Christian establish their "end times" theology FIRST before ever "stepping foot" inside the book. Doctrine should not be solely based on the words of the Book of Revelation.

 

[Unbound68]

With regard to the original topic of this thread (namely, the Antichrist), I have found the Book of Revelation a tough read, and would like some guidance:
Is the Antichrist a natural person or a supernatural creature?
Is the Antichrist the same as the Great Beast or are they two distinct villains?

The key to understanding the identities of the beasts in the book of Revelation is to see what the identities of the beasts are in the book of Daniel.

Rule #1. Beasts are never put for individual men.

 

[Unbound68]

The prolific writer/commentator John Calvin never wrote about Revelations.

But he did identify the man of sin, an entity which, as far as I am aware, no one denies is synonymous with something within the book of Revelation.

 

[christ_undivided]

But he did identify the man of sin, an entity which, as far as I am aware, no one denies is synonymous with something within the book of Revelation.

Which is an appeal to 2 Thes 2:3.

The book of Revelations would be an interesting discussion. I've enjoyed debating it over the years. I do believe that it was written by the apostle John but I am uncertain of its pedigree from his hands to ours. I do not base my Eschatology solely on Revelations.

 

[Unbound68]

With regard to the original topic of this thread (namely, the Antichrist), I have found the Book of Revelation a tough read, and would like some guidance:
Is the Antichrist a natural person or a supernatural creature?

That depends on whether or not you find it synonymous with any of the beasts. Some would argue the antichrist, man of sin, little horn, and beast from the sea are all references to the same thing. Beasts represent empires, kingdoms, or dynasties.

So to answer your question, the antichrist is neither a natural person, nor a supernatural creature.

Is the Antichrist the same as the Great Beast or are they two distinct villains?

What is “the great beast?” If you mean the beast from the sea in Rev. 13, see above.

 

[Shoonra]

The Book of Revelation is attributed to someone name John, but the writing style is not that of the Fourth Gospel, so it may be someone otherwise unmentioned in the NT.

Since this John says he is sending accounts of his vision to seven different cities (1:4, 1:11), it is possible that he wrote seven different accounts of his vision and that, at some later date, someone assembled two or more of these letters and melded them together in a narrative that essentially repeated bits of the vision, so that the various villains were actually the same single villain described differently in separate letters, and there is so much symbolic activity. I don't know if this theory has been floated before, and I don't ask anyone to agree with me.

I have this theory that the great enemy this John perceived was the Roman Empire. The reference (13:18) for the number 666 that represents a man is a reference to the Roman numbering system - while Hebrew and Greek assigned numeric values to every letter of their alphabets making a grand total of more than a thousand, the Roman used only a limited choice of letters for numbers so that totaling their numbers - I+V+X+L+C+D - would total 666. This would be a discreet way of designating Romans. Also, the reference to the battleground "in Hebrew called Armageddon" (16:16) I think is a hidden reference - the "Ar" means mountain but the spot called Megiddo is in a valley and the verse specifies Hebrew which I think is a clue, so I theorize Armageddon is an anagram in Hebrew for "Roma Negid" - Adversary Rome. Again, I don't know of anyone else who agrees with me and I don't expect anyone here to agree with me.

 

[Unbound68]

I have this theory that the great enemy this John perceived was the Roman Empire.

Since what he saw was a prophecy of things to come, what he saw was a later form of the Roman Empire than that under which he was ruled. Some say (including many of the early church fathers) the restrainer was the pagan Roman Empire, which, once fallen, allowed the emergence of the papal Roman Empire.

Number of the beast = Lateinos, the Latin man (Pope).

 

[Shoonra]

No, I don't believe that the Book of Revelation foresees, nor warns against, the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it was casting the pagan Roman Empire as the villain and was probably written during the persecution of Christians under Nero or Domitian.

 

[Unbound68]

No, I don't believe that the Book of Revelation foresees, nor warns against, the Roman Catholic Church.

Well there's a whole slew of evidence and testimony from the early church fathers, the ancient Christians in the centuries leading up to the 1500s, the Reformers and the Puritans -- not to mention the history, magisterial teachings, and decrees of the RCC itself -- that proves otherwise. Have you ever read the Papal decrees ad abolendum or ad extirpanda? Look them up and read them once. Then read Revelation 13 and the chapters that follow.

The early church fathers testified (before its fulfillment) that the pagan Roman empire in their day was the restrainer, and that only upon its FALL, would the man of sin arise. Guess what happened after pagan Rome fell?

Are you aware of the origins of Futurism and Preterism? They're both counter-schemes of interpreting the book of Revelation by which the prophecies are deflected away from the Pope of Rome. Preterism says pagan Rome. Futurism says future Rome. None but historicism say PAPAL Rome.

I believe it was casting the pagan Roman Empire as the villain

For what purpose? They had been living under the villainous pagan Roman Empire long before Revelation was even written, so John wouldn't have been telling them anything new. Plus, the man of sin, aka beast from the sea, was to arise from WITHIN the professing Church, not from without. Your villain wouldn't fool anyone arising from out of the pagan Roman empire. Entering the sheepfold unawares, as the head of professing christendom, now that sounds more "villainous." Guess what Vicar of Christ means?

and was probably written during the persecution of Christians under Nero or Domitian.

Those are pretty much the only two choices there are. Futurists and Historicists believe it was written under Domitian in the mid 90s. Preterists believe it was written under Nero in the 60s.

 

[Unbound68]

Are you aware of the origins of Futurism and Preterism? They're both counter-schemes of interpreting the book of Revelation by which the prophecies are deflected away from the Pope of Rome. Preterism says pagan Rome. Futurism says future Rome. None but historicism say PAPAL Rome.

Continued because I ran out of edit time:

Preterism and Futurism are counter-schemes crafted by the Jesuits Alcasar and Ribera. Preterism says the man of sin is past. Futurism says the man of sin is future. Historicism says he's presently in our midst, which has been the rallying cry of true Christians for no fewer than 7 consecutive centuries.


Btw, that papal decree mentioned in my last post is spelled ad abolendam.

 

[Unbound68]

On a KJVO-related note, way back around 2003 (give or take a year) I'll never forget being told in an e-mail by a one time hero of KJVOs named Scott Jones (some here will remember that name from Marty Shue's Which Version Yahoo group) that the subject of the antichrist was "all but passed over during the Reformation." Those were his exact words. At that time I was a fairly new student of the Reformation, but Jones's statement immediately raised a red flag in my mind.

He ran a website dedicated to highlighting the Calvinist writings of the Reformers, particularly on the topic of salvation. "Lamb and Lion" I think it was called, or something to that effect. He would post lots of stuff from Knox, Calvin, etc. For a time, I was helping him. That means I was reading the Reformers. Which means I was exposed to more of what they believed than just election and salvation....like their statements regarding the man of sin and the Pope.

From that point, I resolved to get to the whole truth of what was taught by whom, and in what original works those teachings could be found. I visited numerous libraries (like Penn state) in order to access the Early English Books Online database. I spent hours upon hours, weekend after weekend, downloading everything I could find onto multiple CD-ROMs (Oh how I wish google books and archive.org were around back then!).

I have now collected hundreds of treatises and commentaries on the books of 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, dating from the 14th century to today. No one will ever tell me again that the book of Revelation and the identities of the antichrist and man of sin weren't MAJOR topics of study by all the Reformers during the Reformation, as well as by those who preceded them, going all the way back to the 12th century, and by those who came after them (Puritans, etc).

 

[Unbound68]

No, I don't believe that the Book of Revelation foresees, nor warns against, the Roman Catholic Church.

Besides the two papal decrees I mentioned that you should read, I would also have a look at various of the Roman Catholic Councils, such as Lateran IV and Toulouse.

 

[Shoonra]

I would not be at all surprised if every generation for the past two thousand years has nominated its own "Mr. 666", with strange and wonderful numerology to support the selection.

 

[Unbound68]

T

 

[christ_undivided]

Well there's a whole slew of evidence and testimony from the early church fathers, the ancient Christians in the centuries leading up to the 1500s, the Reformers and the Puritans -- not to mention the history, magisterial teachings, and decrees of the RCC itself -- that proves otherwise. Have you ever read the Papal decrees ad abolendum or ad extirpanda? Look them up and read them once. Then read Revelation 13 and the chapters that follow.

The early church fathers testified (before its fulfillment) that the pagan Roman empire in their day was the restrainer, and that only upon its FALL, would the man of sin arise. Guess what happened after pagan Rome fell?

Are you aware of the origins of Futurism and Preterism? They're both counter-schemes of interpreting the book of Revelation by which the prophecies are deflected away from the Pope of Rome. Preterism says pagan Rome. Futurism says future Rome. None but historicism say PAPAL Rome.



For what purpose? They had been living under the villainous pagan Roman Empire long before Revelation was even written, so John wouldn't have been telling them anything new. Plus, the man of sin, aka beast from the sea, was to arise from WITHIN the professing Church, not from without. Your villain wouldn't fool anyone arising from out of the pagan Roman empire. Entering the sheepfold unawares, as the head of professing christendom, now that sounds more "villainous." Guess what Vicar of Christ means?



Those are pretty much the only two choices there are. Futurists and Historicists believe it was written under Domitian in the mid 90s. Preterists believe it was written under Nero in the 60s.

I'm more of a Historicist than a Futurist. I do believe the Resurrection of the Dead and Judgement is yet future. However, MOST prophecy was fulfilled in the InCarnation, Death and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. One day, He will gather all people to Himself. The message is still clear. NOW... is the time. There are plenty of "Sky watchers" out there expecting to be able to tell when "Jesus will return" with the expectations of "getting ready". It is historical fact that most of these have already meet God at their death.