What is the antichrist? (No spam)

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:45 am

The question of what the antichrist is has somehow arisen in the Oriana Fallaci thread, so to avoid spamming up the topic...
Could someone who has a better knowledge of what the antichrist is than I do (ie. almost anyone) actually provide a decent explanation, please?

Many thanks for any answers.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:56 am

I don't know anything about the New Advent group, but they run a website with an online Catholic encyclopedia. Read what they have to say about antichrist here.

From the Vatican's Official Website, there is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[675] Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

[676] The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

The original text had some footnotes which I removed here, but you can find on the link I provided above.

EDIT-From what these two sources indicate, "antichrist" is a generic term for anyone who is a false messiah and draws true believers away from the one and only rightful Messiah (Jesus Christ).

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:57 am

As i understand it (bearing mind i am a heathen) there are two schools of thought regarding The Antichrist.

One says there is a lone man who is going to act as a messiah.

Another states it is a force that moves against the works of God on this planet, kind of like The Devil if you like.

This is what i have been told in the past, I would be happily proved wrong though

AntiChrist · Post by **AntiChrist** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 5:54 pm

According to the Bible (I believe 2 Peter, don't have it with me), everyone that does not follow God is an antichrist. It seems that no religions like to read what it says, though, and so we get the idea of one antichrist.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 6:48 pm

@ac: I also believe this same idea is found in one of John's later letters - the second one, I do believe. Rather than some singular person, this is applied to anyone who fits the bill.

In regards to what people (and subsequently religions) believe and teach about it: of course. Everyone tends to see what they like to see. History is overflowing with examples of this tendency of human nature.

From a historical perspective, much of the meaning of those letters found in the "New Testament" should be placed in the times they were written in. At that time, several groups were found amongst the early christians that have come to be known as "Gnostics." Some taught rather bizarre doctrines that the main body of christians under the apostles felt were lies intended to lead them astray. John writes much about such people in his letters, if you'll notice, and Paul also makes mention of them in his. In fact, just about every letter writer mentions such people in their writings, but John refers to these "false teachers" as "antichrist" (the word is used collectively here, like the archaic "ye"). I don't recall the word showing up anywhere else except in his letters.

How that came to what it means today - I have no idea, and really don't want one, either.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 6:57 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
-From what these two sources indicate, "antichrist" is a generic term for anyone who is a false messiah and draws true believers away from the one and only rightful Messiah (Jesus Christ).

This was the meaning I was raised with.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:17 pm

From what these two sources indicate, "antichrist" is a generic term for anyone who is a false messiah and draws true believers away from the one and only rightful Messiah (Jesus Christ).

This was the meaning I was raised with.

I'm curious (this is not necessarily directed at Weasel or HLD)...why do people believe that?

I think I'm more interested in the "why" more than anything else.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:32 pm

Originally posted by Chanak

I'm curious (this is not necessarily directed at Weasel or HLD)...why do people believe that?

I think I'm more interested in the "why" more than anything else.

Between the church I was raised in and late night horror movies.

Plus I also thought anti- meant the complete opposite.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:10 pm

Between the church I was raised in and late night horror movies.

Those late night horror movies...most of them starred Christopher Lee, as I remember.

I actually like him. He didn't do too bad in the LoTR movie. I think he makes a better Saruman than Dracula.

I guess I'm wondering how people arrive at some of their beliefs. I wasn't raised a Christian, so most of what I know comes from reading. I heard things growing up from friends, and contrasted that later with what I studied.

Though I've looked into just about every religion/philosophy I've ever come across, I've studied Christianity the closest, as a wealth of material abounds for the taking. I've avoided denominational resources as I felt it might add a bias that might slant my opinion one way or the other. The writings of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origen, and others were a veritable goldmine of information, and it surprised me at how many Christians weren't aware of their existence. These were, after all, early Christians, and I thought their 1st - 3rd century opinions and ideas would prove illuminating.

I noticed that the idea of "antichrist" as a false messiah didn't show up in the bible. In fact, it rather struck me as more of a label or designation these people used to identify a person that taught ideas subversive to their own. I found in those old writings (written before a bible of any kind was assembled together) numerous references to people who had left the gatherings of the apostles in order to start their own sects. One of the leaders of these sects was referred to by John (this was described by a later writer, perhaps Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John) as being the "enemy of the truth." He called them "antichrist," as most of them taught that the Son of God did not become a man, or that the man called Jesus was a puppet of some sort that really wasn't a human. I mentioned these groups by name earlier - they were called "Gnostics." Besides the Roman government, who every once in a while decided to blame everything on Christians and persecute them (this was sporadic), it appears their biggest enemies were these Gnostics, who apparently would enter into their gatherings secretly and teach their ideas to other Christians.

I suppose I was wondering how this came to what is widely taught and believed today. The Cathecism HLD refers to is a good example of the contrast I have seen between what I have read in the bible and historical texts, and what I hear people who were raised Christian say.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:34 pm

(I 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. (I John 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. (19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. (21) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (II John 1:7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist.

-----------------------------

In composition anti has different meanings: antibasileus denotes a king who fills an interregnum; antistrategos, a propraetor; anthoupatos, a proconsul; in Homer antitheos denotes one resembling a god in power and beauty, while in other works it stands for a hostile god. Following mere analogy one might interpret antichristos as denoting one resembling Christ in
appearance and power; but it is safer to define the word
according to its biblical and ecclesiastical usage

"The followers of the beast have its mark on their head and hand. The beast from the land has two horns like a ram though comes guised as man. Its power lies in its art of deceiving by means of tokens and miracles. it is called the false prophet Antichrist, Its office is to assist the beast from the sea, and to induce men to adore its image"

"The Antichrist will become a world leader even though he misuses his power. The root meanings of his names will give a clue of his destiny and what he is capable of. The name may sound somewhat barbaric to European ears. He will be influenced by old customs known in the literature but generally forgotten"

"As the son of god, both seperate and one. As he is Satan loosed out of his prison, and seducing the nations, together and also seperate"

----------------------------

End all quoting...

I think from that you can see that there is a term

'Antichrist'

Being somone who is basicly, Anti Christ.. in that, he is not Pro Christ

So the Term, Antichrist, or An Antichrist blah blah.. Is exactly that Anti-Christ.. Whereas, THE Antichrist, is something else entirely

Hope all that helps..

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:37 pm

Originally posted by Chanak

Those late night horror movies...most of them starred Christopher Lee, as I remember. I actually like him. He didn't do too bad in the LoTR movie. I think he makes a better Saruman than Dracula.

.

He was in the latest star wars movie too wasnt he? HE did a good job, unlike every other person in it... : /

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:58 pm

@gnomethingy: Thanks for the nice post.

Very interesting.

I suppose I'm going by where I've seen that word used in the bible, and also what I read in the tremendous amounts of early Christian literature. I see John mention it in his earlier letters, but it's never mentioned in Revelation in conjunction with the Beast, or the False Prophet. Perhaps some version (there are so many your head can swim) has it there; the ones I have seen do not. It always seems to point to false teachers, rather than someone trying to appear like Christ, or impersonate him.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:43 pm

@Chanak, a better understanding of my reasons..or how I was led to preceive an Anti-Christ, would come from the church I was raised in. I have come to believe even a group of churches based on the same thoughts/beliefs will be taught a different way.

My knowledge though is lacking, being as I left the enviroment once I was of age to decide for myself.

Is there a god? I admit I don't know. Will a religion be used to control a group of people...IMHO yes. The downfall IMHO of a religion is.... there is no god to (enforce...bad way of putting it

) the beliefs on earth. It is left to mankind to enforce it and I believe mankind to a certain point is corrupted. No all...but some.

So I would say my view of the Anti-Christ is warped by my previous experience.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:09 am

Originally posted by gnomethingy

He was in the latest star wars movie too wasnt he? HE did a good job, unlike every other person in it... : /

He also played the voice of Death in the Discworld cartoon series, and did a great job IMO.
Sorry for the spam.

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:20 am

For those interested in Nietzsche's book, "The Antichrist", here's a good summary:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... hrist.html

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 3:38 am

Originally posted by Chanak
@gnomethingy: Thanks for the nice post. Very interesting.

I suppose I'm going by where I've seen that word used in the bible, and also what I read in the tremendous amounts of early Christian literature. I see John mention it in his earlier letters, but it's never mentioned in Revelation in conjunction with the Beast, or the False Prophet. Perhaps some version (there are so many your head can swim) has it there; the ones I have seen do not. It always seems to point to false teachers, rather than someone trying to appear like Christ, or impersonate him.

"one might interpret antichristos as denoting one resembling Christ in appearance and power"

Something like that?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:05 am

Originally posted by Chanak
I mentioned these groups by name earlier - they were called "Gnostics." Besides the Roman government, who every once in a while decided to blame everything on Christians and persecute them (this was sporadic), it appears their biggest enemies were these Gnostics, who apparently would enter into their gatherings secretly and teach their ideas to other Christians.

This seems (to me) a little odd, since Christianity didn't have an orthodox body of accepted doctrine during the 1st Century, other than a belief that Jesus was God, and that was still evolving out of Judaism and Jewish Christianity. Even claims made by the RCC for the antiquity of Trinitarianism in the nascent Christian Church were found (once people were allowed to read the old documents) to rest on nothing more than a passage in Justin Martyr which does not use the Trinitarian formula. Christianity at that time included many beliefs which only in later years would be excluded and regarded as Gnostic.

You write, "It appears their biggest enemies were the Gnostics..." By the 4th Century AC, certainly, when the Christian Church leaders finally decided upon a body of core beliefs and a canon. But glancing at the 1st and 2nd centuries without an Orthodox perspective, how were what we might call "Christian Gnostics" today something "other" than the Christian community? The acceptance of some Gnostic teachings as part of Christianity of the day were a given. (I write "some," because Gnosticism was actually a very large, amorphous body of concepts that represented the views of many different religions. As a term, it lacks precision. Historically, one body of Gnostics frequently had nothing in common with another. The Manicheans, for instance, who eventually came to number the young Augustine of Hippo among their priesthood, would have gasped uncomprehendingly at the Seth-Ophites.) They had bishops and congregations. Many Christian Gnostic books still exist that were at that time written and accepted by various Christian congregations. And although they were defined by the larger portion of the Church hierarchy in later years as outside the pale, their ideas continued to have an enormous impact on Christianity--as witness Revelation, an extremely Gnostic text. Others, much like it still exist, which were part of the accepted religious wisdom of Gnostic Christian communities.

EDIT: I think in retrospect this reply focuses on issues that aren't essential to this thread, so we may want to continue this discussion (if, indeed, anybody wants to continue it) elsewhere.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:27 am

Originally posted by Chanak
I think I'm more interested in the "why" more than anything else.

I think that many people psychologically need an embodiment of their fears for it to be more real; that is, "The" Antichrist is Christianity's boogeyman. In the same way Christians believe that God put Jesus on the Earth to be a divine incarnation of what is heavenly, I think people need to believe that Satan is going to assume a human form to personify everything that is evil.

I think that generally the more mainline and orthodox churches stick with the general definition that "antichrist" is anyone or anything that draws people away from salvation through Christ. In my experience, it is the fundamentalist denominations that believe that a single person will take a human form as Satan's minion on Earth.

gnomethingy · Post by **gnomethingy** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:17 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave

it is the fundamentalist denominations that believe that a single person will take a human form as Satan's minion on Earth.

Your absolutly right on this, its prophets such as Nostradamus(SP?)

And others of that class that make note of the 'son of satan' and all the likes, the movie 'Omen' and its mass of sequals is actually based around that whole Antichrist / End of days mythos (is this the right word?)

I dont beleive its mentioned in any part of the bible or any other certifiable religous texts..

It does however, make for very interesting reading from a fictional standpoint, there allot of fire and brimstone to it and its very interesting, much like most of the old testament.. which is probably the basis for it being accepted as the popular definition

Though, its the all important 'the' that makes the difference, one can be an antichrist without being the antichrist.. If its to be recognized as a valid interpratation in the first place, instead of simply dated fiction, pulled of as a kind of psuedo fact by religous accsosiation

I suppose then it all goes back the question..

What is 'The Antichrist?'

Or what does 'Antichrist' mean...

Thats my long winded take, take it or leave it.. (Definatly leave the bad pun, whatever you do)