Who would the antichrist fool?

[Athetotheist]

"....and all the world wondered after the beast." (Rev. 13:3)

The antichrist is supposed to fool everyone----except true Christians----into worshipping him.

How well would that work out? Would he be able to fool.....

Jews? Judaism holds that only God is to be worshipped and that God does not take any physical form. Worship of any human being is considered blasphemous idolatry, and any wonders the antichrist performed would be interpreted as the workings of a false teacher sent by God to test the Jewish people.

Muslims? Islam also teaches that God takes no physical form, so they too would instantly peg the antichrist as a phony.

Feminist Pagans would reject any god-claim which didn't acknowledge the Goddess.

Atheists would suspect any miracle of being either a trick or a coincidence. An "image of the beast" brought to life could be taken for an artificial intelligence project.

The god-claim of the antichrist being fundamentally incompatible with so many beliefs, who would be left for the antichrist to fool?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #130

At the time of the writing of Rev 13, during the 6th head of the beast (Rev 17) Julius Caesar was the 5th head of the beast (Rev 17), who "was" and is dead, and only ruled as a "healed" god through his successors.

Ruling through successors? What kind of astounding miracle is that?

The "anti-Christ" of 1 John 2:13 is one who was and is coming, and that many antichrists have arisen and that they went out from us, which is to say, they went out from the original followers of Christ to become antichrist, in that they followed the false prophet Paul

What do you take as an authoritative source? Not the Christian Bible, or you would accept the writing of Paul.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #130

At the time of the writing of Rev 13, during the 6th head of the beast (Rev 17) Julius Caesar was the 5th head of the beast (Rev 17), who "was" and is dead, and only ruled as a "healed" god through his successors.

Ruling through successors? What kind of astounding miracle is that?

The "anti-Christ" of 1 John 2:13 is one who was and is coming, and that many antichrists have arisen and that they went out from us, which is to say, they went out from the original followers of Christ to become antichrist, in that they followed the false prophet Paul

What do you take as an authoritative source? Not the Christian Bible, or you would accept the writing of Paul.

There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul, and the "antichrist", at the time, "went out from us" 1 John 2:18 quote is:

18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.

As for "successors", the 8th head "was" and "is not" and is "an eighth" (Rev 17), is having the 5th follow the 7th, which is not a proper succession.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #132

There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul

But the Christian scriptures are supposed to be a box set. If Paul is wrong, why couldn't John be wrong as well?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Except that you continue to say 'voices' and 'them'; when I have said Him and HIS voice.

I don't understand the difference if a person is hearing a voice or voices. Is it normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? Either way, I'm confident I did not offend any voice.

You tell me. You are the one who continues to change Him and voice - to - them and voices.

Christ spoke to people in the flesh and many still rejected Him (and His words).

Why do you think so many people were unimpressed with Christ in the flesh? If he failed to convince, that would be on him of course, but you attempt to pass the blame. You blaming those that were not convinced is unfair to them.

How can you claim it is unfair if you do not know the reasons they did not accept Him?

The only accounts we have from that time reveal - to name just a few reasons - that they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons); that some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out, pointing out their hypocrisy; that some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth; that some had different expectations of the Messiah.

How is any of that His fault?

But as an adult, my Lord is the very One who taught me to test the content of what was being shared.

Got it. So you hear a voice you call Christ's, have knowledge that comes from a god, have spirits that interact with you and the god of the universe just so happened to have taught you how to test the content of what it was sharing? Any claims of yours that I got wrong or am missing?

I listen to the voice of my Lord (as do all of His sheep), yes. He teaches His sheep/disciples (as Teachers tend to do). Your "have spirits that interact with you" appears to be loosely based on my statement that the spirit in me bore witness to the truth of something someone shared (that spirit would not be a person but rather the breath/blood/seed of God... the same holy spirit that Christ breathed upon His apostles; that same anointing that is being referred to at 1John 2:27). He (Christ) also taught me to test the inspired expression. You seem to be finding fault in that (I could be misreading your 'tone'), but is that not something a good Teacher would do: teach their student to test what they hear, rather than just accept any and every claim?

To focus upon and test the content (the message). If the content/message was false, then it could not have come from Him - regardless of what was being claimed.

Let's be honest, you are just explaining the mechanism that got us to all the 10's of thousands of Christian denominations that we have today. Not the hearing of a voice mind you, just the interpreting of the Biblical message.

We have 10's of thousands of denominations because many (if not most) people are NOT listening to Christ.

Peace again to you.

And peace to you!

Thank you!


Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

You tell me. You are the one who continues to change Him and voice - to - them and voices.

Copy/paste: "I don't understand the difference if a person is hearing a voice or voices. Is it normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? Either way, I'm confident I did not offend any voice."

I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? I do find your objection to the idea that you hear more than one voice to be very fascinating though. It's almost as if the idea that hearing one voice is normal and only when a person hears more than one should they be alarmed.

How can you claim it is unfair if you do not know the reasons they did not accept Him?

Obviously, they were not convinced. If a universe creating god wanted to convince you that it was a god, it would not fail.
If I saw man heal a blind person on behalf of a god, that would be convincing. However, what I knew the guy wasn't actually blind in the first place? Would I be convinced?

The only accounts we have from that time reveal - to name just a few reasons - that they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons); that some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out, pointing out their hypocrisy; that some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth; that some had different expectations of the Messiah.

You're are just inventing excuses for why the god concept failed to convince.
Just examine your own words: "some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"
Surely you must see how ridiculous saying such a thing is? Ahhhhh!!!! The truth!!!!! Run!!!!! I personally seek to believe in as many true things as I can and welcome things that are shown to be true.

How is any of that His fault?

He failed to convince. Who else could be blamed for this failure?

I listen to the voice of my.... <Snipped more stuff about the voice you hear>

You seem to be finding fault in that (I could be misreading your 'tone'), but is that not something a good Teacher would do: teach their student to test what they hear, rather than just accept any and every claim?

Critical thinking should be learned before we are sent off to be taught. There are dastardly human on this planet after all, even teachers. So teach critical thinking, not believing teachers.
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Apply critical thinking.

Compared to...
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Teacher makes another claim about how to verify the first claim. Teacher supplies a subjective mechanism like, 'does it represent love'. If yes, accept. If no, reject. This mechanism will have varying results from person to person and is therefore not a valid mechanism. It would be critical thinking that would have us arrive at the realization that a subjective mechanism cannot be trusted, like the one supplied by the teacher in the example.

We have 10's of thousands of denominations because many (if not most) people are NOT listening to Christ.

You suggest listening to a voice that you hear. How am I to listen to the voice that you hear?
Having a subjective mechanism like, 'does it represent love' is actually a valid mechanism for all the denominations we have, not a lack of hearing a voice or voices for that matter.

a slave of Christ,
tammy

slave
noun
1.
a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.

I acknowledge the voice you claim to hear, the spirit(s) that guide you or whatever they do, that you claim your knowledge is not your own, but that of a God and that you are a slave to this (the voice, the spirits... all of it). I do not dispute these claims of yours and that you really feel these things are interacting with you.

This is all very odd to me though, as I have never heard voices nor been in a position of being forced into obedience. It's all very fascinating to me.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #132

There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul

But the Christian scriptures are supposed to be a box set. If Paul is wrong, why couldn't John be wrong as well?

It is a "box set" (NT canon) according to a daughter of Babylon (Rev 17:5), which is the Roman Catholic Church. As for John, sure, as shown in historical perspective, as in John 8:7, words can be added and subtracted (Rev 18:19) from original text. But in the words of Yeshua, per Matthew, the message of the "devil", the "tare seed", will be planted along the message of the son of man, in the same field/book, and Yeshua's servants were told to leave the "tares", such as Paul's followers, undisturbed, until the "end of the age", at which time, they would be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30). The historical record pretty well confirms the fact that the "Christian" church took Paul into their bosom and protects him to this day. Their life of lawlessness depends on it. Well, here we are, at the "end of the age", and as you could expect, the veil is coming off the corruption of Paul and his followers, who think they can nail the law judging between right and wrong (good & evil) (Genesis 3:3-4) to a pagan cross, and gain entrance to a heaven guarded by the "worthless shepherd" (Zech 11:17)(Isaiah 22:15-25) Peter. On the other hand, both Peter and Paul are buried in the ground, presumably near Rome, as well as all of their immediate followers. If you look at the quotes preceding the use of the term "antichrist", the term is substituted with the term wicked, which would be similar to lawless/sinners. Paul is quoted as being the "foremost" sinner, and his followers assume the mantle of "sinners", and being among those who are both "righteous" & "saved", not even knowing what saved, per the "Word", means, apart from the message coming from their false prophet Paul, which is soothing to their ears, but whose final taste will be bitter (Rev 14:10).

[tam]

[brunumb]

Just examine your own words: "some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"
Surely you must see how ridiculous saying such a thing is?

It is not ridiculous at all. It happens every day, even on this very forum. I'm not speaking about non-believers per se: a non-beleiver is a non-believer, it does not always mean much to a non-believer what is written in a book or what others testify to (even if corroborated by that book or reason). But those who profess to believers? Show (many of) them something that contradicts what their religion teaches and what they believe- something right there in black and white before their very eyes- and then you can get the figurative version of: "Ahhhhh!!!! The truth!!!!! Run!!!!!"

Or "deny" instead of "run". And of course no one will call it the truth - because who claims to not want the truth, or even realizes that this is what their actions amount to?

That 'deny' or 'run' is often based upon fear though - fear that religion uses to keep people in line.

Your rebuttal is very weak. If someone is convinced they have been presented with the truth then that is the sort of thing that actually leads to conversion. That said, you are in no position to say why people did not accept the claims of Jesus back in the day. It is actually a lot easier to understand why they wouldn't in terms of him being just another itinerant preacher performing lame tricks like so many other tricksters.

[Clownboat]

[tam]

Peace to you,

I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many?

No.

Then why were you so upset when I used the plural voices initially instead of voice? (Which I have since corrected, yet you are still stuck on it).

I was not 'so upset'. I simply corrected you. As for being stuck on it, I am simply answering the questions you keep asking me about it.

And the difference is accuracy. The difference is what I said versus what you keep changing it to. So why do you do that?

See! It does seem that hearing voices is upseting when compared to just hearing a voice. Why the distinction?

I answered that already: accuracy.

Does changing it to 'them' and 'voices' make it easier for you to dismiss or to believe I have a mental illness?

Nope.

If not, then why not simply go with what I said in the first place?

Because I initially made a mistake about the amount of voices you claim to hear. It gets hard when you also bring in spirits. I think you should give me a bit more leeway, especially because I have since corrected it to be just voice.

Then the matter appears to be concluded.

And if the man had clearly been blind since birth and still you did not accept this?

Your statement is nonsensical. You start with 'if', but end in the assertive with a question mark.

It is a direct follow-up to the statement you had just made:

If I saw man heal a blind person on behalf of a god, that would be convincing. However, what I knew the guy wasn't actually blind in the first place? Would I be convinced?

I'm actually sticking to the accounts as described. You are making things up to blame me for blaming them, lol.

Lol indeed! Readers, did Tam blame the victims?

Why are you so stuck on 'victims'? I am simply going with the account as described. You are ignoring the account as described.

Compare that to:
If the creator of our universe intended to make itself known to someone, but failed to convince them that it was real. Said creator would at fault for not being convincing.

You're casting blame there, yourself.

It is not ridiculous at all.

It is in fact ridiculous to reject a creator that is trying to make itself known to you because you don't want to know the truth.

I agree the action is ridiculous.

But that doesn't mean people don't do it. People reject (refuse even to listen to) what they do not want to hear all the time.

It happens every day, even on this very forum.

Only in your head.

I laid it out in my previous post pretty clearly. You can reject it; that is fine; but you have not countered it.

Or how about denying the truth that shows you in a bad light,

There is no better way to improve oneself then to acknowledge a mistake and correct it. Again, a reason that I seek to believe as many true thing as I can. One should not fear but avoid being wrong!

That may be... but are you suggesting that people do not do it?

I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.

I bolded the part where the subjectivness is entering into the mechanism therefore making it invalid.

Plus it just makes sense: God IS love, so what comes from Him will also be from love. And Christ IS truth - if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true.

Again: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.
What you see as love will not be shared by all. Some would find it loving to stone a homosexual, because that dead homosexual can therefore no longer seduce others to be homosexual. It is loving to save others from becoming homosexual.
Tam may agree. Or not, but either way, it is up to the individual to determine where and in what they see love.

Except of course if you are also looking to Christ, then you could not stone a homosexual (or anyone), even if you were just going by what is written. Because Christ taught - both word and deed - just the opposite. That is not subjective, except to someone who does not want to hear or see or know the truth of the matter. That person can find all manner of justifications to do what they want to do, regardless of the commands and example from Christ (the Truth).

The rest is based on ignorance (what makes a person homosexual) and fear, rather than on truth and love.

Look at the example that I gave above, where my Lord asked me about my actions, if they were from love as He has taught me? Look again at the result that came from that. Where is the fault? Where is the problem?

Again x2: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above. I note that Tam cannot speak for everyone.

Maybe that is why Tam asked those two questions there at the end of the quote.

If you want to hear Christ (and not just to hear, but to LISTEN and serve) - then ask for ears to hear, and keep asking, keep knocking, and the door will be opened.

Tam, that is not how it worked for me. I have tested such more earnestly then you will ever believe or understand.
I'm just not like you as I have not been hearing a voice since childhood nor do I have spirits (plural or not I'm not sure) influencing me. The knowledge I have is not from a god like you. I am a mere man going with the best information available to me.

Nothing is stopping you from continuing to seek or knock or ask. In the meantime, if you love Christ, remain in His word and obey His commands.


Peace again.