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?

[Diogenes]

If it is untrue... or in the wrong hands (say if someone used it for their own profit - and/or - to gain followers after themselves, even going so far as to teach people that they have to obey them, etc)... yes I would agree.

But wait - that is what religion does; religion even teaches people that to leave the religion is to leave God. That they have to obey the leaders in the religion (no matter what). That is not something I have ever done nor do I have even the REMOTEST desire to do. I can be wrong.

Yes. You are wrong. Paul is one of those misleading teachers. Jesus never made himself a God, or one with God. That is Paul's doing. He is the false prophet. Peter, who actually knew Jesus, opposed Paul in some of Paul's doctrine. Paul invented Christianity. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, that it was within you. Paul preached the cult of Christ, turning a man into God. Jesus most often referred to himself as 'The Son of Man.' He even denied being good, reserving that for God alone.

NO ONE speaks for God, yet many claim to, and call themselves "Christians," a term Jesus of Nazareth never used and certainly did not apply to himself.
“My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.”  And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
__ Matthew 26:38-39

[tam]

Peace to you,

If it is untrue... or in the wrong hands (say if someone used it for their own profit - and/or - to gain followers after themselves, even going so far as to teach people that they have to obey them, etc)... yes I would agree.

But wait - that is what religion does; religion even teaches people that to leave the religion is to leave God. That they have to obey the leaders in the religion (no matter what). That is not something I have ever done nor do I have even the REMOTEST desire to do. I can be wrong.

Yes. You are wrong.

It is possible. But in this instance, wrong about what?

Paul is one of those misleading teachers.

A - I do not recall mentioning Paul in my post.

B - Paul is not inerrant any more than any other man is inerrant. Paul did make mistakes, at least at the start. Who doesn't? (The answer to that question would be: Christ, the Truth - and so of course also His Father.)

Jesus never made himself a God, or one with God. That is Paul's doing.

Paul never claim that Christ was God ("YHWH"). Christ Himself said that He and His Father are one though. (that does not mean 'one being' and Paul never claimed otherwise - though men may interpret his words as meaning more than what he actually said)

He is the false prophet.

Did Paul prophecy something that did not happen?

Peter, who actually knew Jesus, opposed Paul in some of Paul's doctrine.

Such as?

{keeping in mind that Paul did not teach the trinity or teach that Christ was God ("YHWH")}

Paul invented Christianity.

Men built a religion around Paul (protestants for the most part) the same as men built a religion around Peter (catholics for the most part, even outright claiming that the church is built on Peter).

That doesn't that mean Paul or Peter had anything to do with that.

Paul made some mistakes at the beginning (with regarding to shunning and judging), then later corrected those errors - men following Paul (instead of Christ) will make the same errors that Paul made, the same way people following Peter were being led into error because they were following Peter rather than Christ.

When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Paul had to learn, the same as we all do (same as the apostles had to learn as well), and he had baggage that he was carrying from his time as a Pharisee. He did learn though.

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, that it was within you.

Sure, I don't see where Paul preached against that.

Paul preached the cult of Christ, turning a man into God. Jesus most often referred to himself as 'The Son of Man.' He even denied being good, reserving that for God alone.

Christ also referred to Himself as the Son of God, the Word, the Truth, the Way, the Life, the Messiah/Christ (the Chosen/Anointed One of JAH).

But since Paul did not claim that Christ was God (God is the Father, the MOST Holy One of Israel), then this is kind of a moot point.

NO ONE speaks for God, yet many claim to, and call themselves "Christians," a term Jesus of Nazareth never used and certainly did not apply to himself.

Christ the WORD of God. He speaks the words that His Father gave Him, He reveals God to us as God truly is. If we see Christ, we see His Father as well. If we know Christ, we know His Father as well. Not because they are the same person, but because Christ is the perfect representation of His Father. The living Image of God.

Christ would not have been called a Christian, because He is the Christ (the Anointed One). The word Christian is derived from the word Christ, and means anointed ones (not THE Anointed One <- that is Christ; but anointed ones - anointed with holy spirit.)

People use that word to simply mean disciple of Christ, but it simply carries the meaning of being anointed (with holy spirit, the baptism that Christ performs, the water of life that Christ gives).

Most versions leave the word 'divinely' out, but in Young's Literal Translation:

and having found him, he brought him to Antioch, and it came to pass that they a whole year did assemble together in the assembly, and taught a great multitude, the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians.



It is not something we decide... though we can certainly seek, and knock and ask, and keep doing so. But Christ is the One who chooses.



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

[Diogenes]

[Replying to tam in post #112]
The entire New Testament, and the Bible as well, is a collection of writings by men claiming to know God's will and men claiming to know what Jesus actually said. Paul is just one example. He never met Jesus, tho' they lived in the same time and place. Instead he made up a story about a vision he claimed he had and reported it after three days of delirium without food or water.

It's obvious these various authors disagreed, hence in addition to hundreds of different religions, we have thousands of different 'Christian' beliefs. Christians cannot even agree on whether Jesus of Nazareth was a god or on the fantastic doctrine of the 'Trinity.' Christians cannot even agree on whether or not 'Christ' has already returned (almost 2000 years ago - "full preterism" - or on when the 'millennium' will take place, or has taken place or is now happening.
Many Christians, rightly I think, recognize the myths of Genesis did not happen as literally portrayed; they are not historical events, but powerful myths that carry spiritual truths. Others actually believe they happened and the laws of physics were different then.

My objection to your post is your implicit claim to speak for God. Even you recognize that all you can fairly do is opine on your interpretation of scripture, which is itself merely the authors' opinions. I am not saying you explicitly claim to speak for God, hence the word 'implicit.' Paul makes the same mistake. One example is when he tell Timothy to 'rightly divide' the word of truth [God] as if that could actually be done.

2 Timothy 2:15

[William]

Men built a religion around Paul (protestants for the most part) the same as men built a religion around Peter (catholics for the most part, even outright claiming that the church is built on Peter).

Scripture itself isn't about law but grace. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with YHVH [aka "The Father"].
A genuine relationship with The Creator, is worth so much more than a relationship with a religious artifact, would you agree?

[Replying to Diogenes in post #113]

My objection to your post is your implicit claim to speak for God.

Scripture itself isn't about speaking for YHVH. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with YHVH [aka "The Father"] that YHVH speaks for YHVH directly in relation to the individual.

That is why no one can speak for YHVH to another.

One can speak about YHVH [bear witness of YHVH] from their own perspective, as in - one can show another the door that exits into the outside - but one cannot go through the door and enter the outside, for another.
One can speak about what being outside is like, but one cannot experience that for another.

The difficulty therein, is that even speaking about the door, doesn't mean that those who hear the words about the door, even see the door, let alone want to use it to go outside and investigate - through personal experience - what outside is all about.

Q: Is the onus to make the door visible, on those who witness YHVH?

[JoeyKnothead]

Scripture itself isn't about speaking for YHVH. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with YHVH [aka "The Father"] that YHVH speaks for YHVH directly in relation to the individual.

That is why no one can speak for YHVH to another.

One can speak about YHVH [bear witness of YHVH] from their own perspective, as in - one can show another the door that exits into the outside - but one cannot go through the door and enter the outside, for another.
One can speak about what being outside is like, but one cannot experience that for another.

The difficulty therein, is that even speaking about the door, doesn't mean that those who hear the words about the door, even see the door, let alone want to use it to go outside and investigate - through personal experience - what outside is all about.

Q: Is the onus to make the door visible, on those who witness YHVH?

Yet one more reason I so enjoy your unique perspective. That's poetry right there.

[Clownboat]

"Atheists would suspect any miracle of being either a trick or a coincidence."

Okay, I'll stop assuming that atheists are all skeptical of miracles

You did not assume kind sir, you asserted.
See the bold above where you did so.

In all the time you've been an atheist, have you ever heard or seen a claim of the miraculous and not suspected that it was false?

I'm more ignostic than an atheist, but all claims are false until reasonably shown to be true.
A miracle is miraculous be definition. Therefore, if I truly saw a miracle, it would be miraculous. How mundane is a miracle to you I must wonder? Could you witness a dead body for days reanimate and just 'Oh hum, nothing to see here' it away? I would not be able to do such myself, thus why I ask.

[Clownboat]

If you shared something that you learned from a teacher of yours, does that mean no one else can go and learn from that teacher, themselves?

Nope.

The problem is with your claim that Christ is wisdom and we learn from him. What we don't have is Christ teaching us. We have humans making claims about Christ, which is to not be learning from Christ, but from humans.
Therefore, my question: How can we learn from Christ when we have people claiming to speak on his behalf?

Tam, are you not here making claims on behalf of Christ? If I trust your words, am I trusting in Christ, or Tam? I sure wish Christ had something to offer.
Que Tam making claims about Christ to us about what he has to offer, only to illustrate my point.

"This is something my Lord has confirmed to me, so that it is not my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His."

See where you equate god knowledge to being nothing but your own? You have not demonatrated this to be true, so at this point, you are just a human making claims on behalf of Christ, which is the opposite of having Christ teach us.

It is not my knowledge. I am not wise enough to figure these things out myself.

Yet arrogant enought to claim your knowledge is actually a gods knowledge?

Instead, I give credit to my Teacher, as is His due.

You are assuming for yourself, its presumed authority. Remember, it is you spouting this knowledge and claiming a god is behind it. It's not your fault Tam, but realize, we only see Tam at work here, no god concept.

You can accept or reject or ignore that as you choose, but I am not going to claim something as my own when it belongs to someone else.

Yet that is exactly what you do!
You claim a Christ's knowledge as your own. Or more specifically, Tam knowledge is actually god knowledge.
The evidence for this is your own words: "This is something my Lord has confirmed to me, so that it is not my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His."
Do you see it?

I'm certainly not going to say 'this means such and such because I am so wise and I figured it out'.

Correct, you are just going to claim that your knowledge comes from a god.
Would it be a valid counter for me to claim that my knowledge comes from the god that created your god and is therefore superior knowledge?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #117]

"This is something my Lord has confirmed to me, so that it is not my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His."

See where you equate god knowledge to being nothing but your own? You have not demonatrated this to be true, so at this point, you are just a human making claims on behalf of Christ, which is the opposite of having Christ teach us.

You are still missing the point Clownboat.

Tam is clearly enough saying that 'having Christ teach us' isn't the same as "Tam telling us what she believes Christ is telling her."

In that, Tam is saying that she has ongoing confirmation that what she refers to as 'The voice of Christ teaching" is telling her the truth, and so in order for another to have the same experience, the other must also somehow connect with the voice of Christ and through the ongoing confirmation establish an integration between ones personality-voice and the Christ-voice...

We can of course, argue re that - "confirmation bias" but as Tam addresses, it is important to be able to distinguish between what the personality tells itself and what the voice of The Lord tells the personality.

The way I would say it, is that the process allows for one come to a place where there would be no distinction between self-voice and Christ -voice which is real/noticeable and such takes time and discipline to accomplish in a genuine manner.

Meantime, there is a work in progress occurring...thus "it is not my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His." is acknowledging some understanding of the process re said work in progress re whatever "This is something my Lord has confirmed to me" might be - as in - what Tam chooses to share with us that she thinks of as "confirmation".

Would it be a valid counter for me to claim that my knowledge comes from the god that created your god and is therefore superior knowledge?

If it can be shown to be the case, then yes.

What do you have to show?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #112]
The entire New Testament, and the Bible as well, is a collection of writings by men claiming to know God's will and men claiming to know what Jesus actually said. Paul is just one example. He never met Jesus, tho' they lived in the same time and place. Instead he made up a story about a vision he claimed he had and reported it after three days of delirium without food or water.

This appears to be a claim as well, does it not?

My objection to your post is your implicit claim to speak for God.

Christ speaks for God (not me). I'm not sure I have more to add to this than I already posted.

Even you recognize that all you can fairly do is opine on your interpretation of scripture, which is itself merely the authors' opinions.

I made no such statement. (though again, note your claim - a claim of the man or woman Diogenes - that scripture is merely authors' opinions)

I am not saying you explicitly claim to speak for God, hence the word 'implicit.'

Maybe that is something you see, but that is not something I claim.

Paul makes the same mistake. One example is when he tell Timothy to 'rightly divide' the word of truth [God] as if that could actually be done.

His full statement is this:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

What is the problem there?



Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

If you shared something that you learned from a teacher of yours, does that mean no one else can go and learn from that teacher, themselves?

Nope.

Then there you go. Simple as that.

The problem is with your claim that Christ is wisdom and we learn from him. What we don't have is Christ teaching us.

That is not on Him.

Some DO have Christ teaching them (because some are listening to Him, His sheep at the least are listening to Him.) Many do not (and bringing this back to the topic), many do not even look to Him to be their teacher but instead look to men, to religion, to religious leaders, etc. And/or many do not believe He even exists (or that He is alive).

We have humans making claims about Christ, which is to not be learning from Christ, but from humans.
Therefore, my question: How can we learn from Christ when we have people claiming to speak on his behalf?

Stop looking to men to teach you and start looking to and listening to Christ, instead.

Tam, are you not here making claims on behalf of Christ? If I trust your words, am I trusting in Christ, or Tam?

If you trust MY words, you are trusting in Tam. If you take the matter to CHRIST, then listen to HIM... then you are trusting in Christ (and His Father also, since Christ is the Word of God).


I am not the only person in Christ who hears His voice. Sometimes one may share as they have received from Christ. Sometimes the spirit within me bears witness to the truth in what they have shared at once (so that I am not just taking them at their word, but I am listening). Sometimes I must test what they have shared and take the matter to my Lord (as He has taught me to do).

"This is something my Lord has confirmed to me, so that it is not my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His."

See where you equate god knowledge to being nothing but your own?

No.

I am doing the exact OPPOSITE.

I understand why YOU see what you see though: a lack of faith or even mere belief in the existence of God and Christ. Therefore, to you, what I share can only have come from me (be my personal opinion, interpretation). To YOU, that means I am claiming my own knowledge as 'god knowledge'.

But I cannot live my life according to how some other person sees it.

You have not demonatrated this to be true, so at this point, you are just a human making claims on behalf of Christ, which is the opposite of having Christ teach us.

Then stop listening to me and go straight to Him. Who's stopping you?

It is not my knowledge. I am not wise enough to figure these things out myself.

Yet arrogant enought to claim your knowledge is actually a gods knowledge?

See above.


I do understand being cautious though. There are many false christs and false prophets and wolves in sheeps' clothing and just plain old liars out there (purposefully or in ignorancee) - speaking lies, misleading people, causing harm. The odd thing is... that is what religion does and instead of focusing on that, some here are now ignoring that entire subject to focus on some lady who bears witness to a living and speaking Christ, who has never told anyone to listen to her, but rather to listen to Christ and follow Him (if indeed one wishes to be HIS disciple).

Instead, I give credit to my Teacher, as is His due.

You are assuming for yourself, its presumed authority. Remember, it is you spouting this knowledge and claiming a god is behind it. It's not your fault Tam, but realize, we only see Tam at work here, no god concept.

So I should lie or be silent? Stop bearing witness to a living and speaking Christ? (Because I am not going to do either of those things.)

It might be worth considering that there is a bit of an irreconcilable difference between a non-believer and the believer on this matter. I can understand that reaction from a non-believer (or even just a non-Christian).

You claim a Christ's knowledge as your own. Or more specifically, Tam knowledge is actually god knowledge.
The evidence for this is your own words: "This is something my Lord has confirmed to me, so that it is NOT my knowledge or wisdom, but rather, His."
Do you see it?

I said the exact opposite. You simply do not or cannot accept that.

I'm certainly not going to say 'this means such and such because I am so wise and I figured it out'.

Correct, you are just going to claim that your knowledge comes from a god.
Would it be a valid counter for me to claim that my knowledge comes from the god that created your god and is therefore superior knowledge?

Counter as you like. Your claim would be meaningless because you have offered nothing more than a "believe me because I have superior 'god knowledge'... end of discussion.

I have NEVER done that. I did not give credit to Christ so that people would believe me, but rather to NOT steal something that is not mine (to NOT claim credit for myself when it belongs to another). Then I shared what I learned from Him. The content. So there is something to examine, to consider, to ponder, to test, to take to Christ oneself if one wants to know the truth of the matter from HIM.


Peace again to you.