The anti-antichrist?

[nobspeople]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-patr ... 37417.html

So it seems, according to the article, that Orthodox faithful are holding back the antichrist. In essence, they're the anti- antichrist.
I've oft heard preachers and ministers say 'if people pray enough, they can prevent the return of christ (until a later date)'.

For discussion:
Is the return of christ (and or the anitchrist) a moving target? In other words, can simple prayers of 'the faithful' extend the return date of either one, or both, of these 'individuals'?
Or is(are) the date(s) 'set in stone' as they say; not moving targets?

[Sherlock Holmes]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-patr ... 37417.html

So it seems, according to the article, that Orthodox faithful are holding back the antichrist. In essence, they're the anti- antichrist.
I've oft heard preachers and ministers say 'if people pray enough, they can prevent the return of christ (until a later date)'.

For discussion:
Is the return of christ (and or the anitchrist) a moving target? In other words, can simple prayers of 'the faithful' extend the return date of either one, or both, of these 'individuals'?
Or is(are) the date(s) 'set in stone' as they say; not moving targets?

I think symbolic language is taken as literal far too frequently in scripture. Christ even went to great lengths to show this when he explained his parables (and pointed out that the parables, literal interpretation, was designed to hide truth).

We are the anti-Christ, the spirit of the anti-Christ is us, our hostile (to God) spirit and attitude, much of what Christ said and what the NT contains is spiritual truth expressed in material terms.

[JehovahsWitness]

For discussion:
Is the return of christ (and or the anitchrist) a moving target? In other words, can simple prayers of 'the faithful' extend the return date of either one, or both, of these 'individuals'?
Or is(are) the date(s) 'set in stone' as they say; not moving targets?

Biblically (and I am making no claim here, just explaining our understanding of scripture) I would say ... Firstly the antichrist is not an individual but a class of people; historic in nature. So to answer the question: no it is not a moving target as the antichrist first appeared in the first century.


As for the return of Christ, that event is biblically very much set in stone, Jesus is recorded as indicating there would be "a day and an hour" for that event.

To read more please go to other posts related to...

CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS , THE ANTICHRIST and ... THE GREAT APOSTACY

[Miles]

.
It appears "antichrist" is one of those words invented by Christians to help round out its developing vocabulary, which, in this case, doesn't go back more than 700 years.

antichrist (n.)
mid-14c., earlier antecrist (late Old English) "an opponent of Christ, an opponent of the Church," especially the last and greatest persecutor of the faith at the end of the world, from Late Latin antichristus, from Greek antikhristos (I John ii.18), from anti- "against" (see anti-) + khristos (see Christ). The earliest appearance of anti- in English and one of the few before c. 1600.
source

One of those words that was appropriated to describe any "enemy of the Church," (and plugged into Biblical verses that preceded its invention (see 1st and 2nd John) ) but whose most significant form---essentially Thee Antichrist---was to make an appearance at the closely approaching end times. (1 John 2:18) which, as we know, never happened. . . . . . . . . . . Oh well. Can't get 'em all right.


.

[nobspeople]

.
It appears "antichrist" is one of those words invented by Christians to help round out its developing vocabulary, which, in this case, doesn't go back more than 700 years.

antichrist (n.)
mid-14c., earlier antecrist (late Old English) "an opponent of Christ, an opponent of the Church," especially the last and greatest persecutor of the faith at the end of the world, from Late Latin antichristus, from Greek antikhristos (I John ii.18), from anti- "against" (see anti-) + khristos (see Christ). The earliest appearance of anti- in English and one of the few before c. 1600.
source

. . . . . . . . . . Oh well. Can't get 'em all right.


.

Can the bible get something right?!?
No, that's not fair. There are things the bible got right: words.

[Difflugia]

One of those words that was appropriated to describe any "enemy of the Church," (and plugged into Biblical verses that preceded its invention (see 1st and 2nd John)

Whether or not "antichrist" means now what the author(s) or 1-2 John meant by it, the Greek word in the New Testament is (antichristos) and entered the English language from the Greek, probably via Latin.

"Antichrist" entered Middle English from the late Old English "antecrist" in the fourteenth century, but Middle English was in a state of flux between words from Old English and Norman French. That's not when a recognizable form of entered English, but when it became the exact form present in Modern English.

Old English and much of Middle English is only recognizable as English by linguists. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, for example, was considered late Middle English and was only written about two hundred years before Shakespeare, which is considered early Modern English:



Note the word "Crist" instead of "Christ." That's the transition that the dictionary was referring to in the fourteenth century. The Canterbury Tales was written in the fourteenth century.

[William]

A Pragmatic Realization Precipitated In Ones Mind
The Antichrist is...a bad attitude against a good thing
Like how a meteorite caused an extinction event

Disparity Pertinent Techniques Ripple Effect

[JoeyKnothead]

Biblically (and I am making no claim here, just explaining our understanding of scripture) I would say ... Firstly the antichrist is not an individual but a class of people; historic in nature. So to answer the question: no it is not a moving target as the antichrist first appeared in the first century.

Alright gays, y'all cut it out in case it's y'all being all antichristy.

As for the return of Christ, that event is biblically very much set in stone, Jesus is recorded as indicating there would be "a day and an hour" for that event.

Considering days and hours occur, well, every day, that's hardly setting it in stone.

It's more like setting it in ether.


JehovahsWitness, though I might fuss at ya, I do preciate your willingness to educate us all on matters biblical and JWical. You butter our biscuits with your knowledge of this stuff.

And I'm kinda amazed at how you catalog relevant posts for future reference.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #8]

Alright gays, y'all cut it out in case it's y'all being all antichristy.

Even though politics in the USA doesn't seem to agree, I suspect 'gays' are the least of the ones people need to worry about.

Considering days and hours occur, well, every day, that's hardly setting it in stone.

It's more like setting it in ether.

Sand or stone, it doesn't matter much. Everything that will happen will and then, the end.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Is the return of christ (and or the anitchrist) a moving target? In other words, can simple prayers of 'the faithful' extend the return date of either one, or both, of these 'individuals'?
Or is(are) the date(s) 'set in stone' as they say; not moving targets?

According to Jesus [biblical] there is no date and that he wont be returning until his Father gives the order.