Antichrist, man of lawlessness

Status
Not open for further replies.

ijunn

Puritan Board Freshman
I listened to a teaching by Kim Riddlebarger in which he makes the case that there is still a future antichrist to come, and that Nero, the Papacy etc. are not THE antichrist described to appear before the coming of Christ. I have read the threads on the PB on this, but I was wondering if you folks can send me to some good historicist/amillennial sources. The pope makes a lot of sense, more than Nero, because Paul in 2 Thessalonians says that this man of lawlessness was to be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. So how can it be Nero, since Christ has not returned. I can understand that the reformers marked the pope as the antichrist, since they were persecuted by the Papacy, but to be frank, we today aren't persecuted by the Papacy anymore. So Riddlebarger's argument that we are to expect one final future antichrist (that we can name THE antichrist) makes sence, but it does sound very futuristic and dispensational. Any thoughts?
 

blood-bought

Puritan Board Freshman
I firmly believe that MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH is Rome. I am aware that the early church also saw Rome as Babylon and the emperor as antichrist. I ask readers to not dismiss this as a conspiracy theory but study what scripture says about the city. Let me go through some points:

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

There is speculation on whether "Babylon" is figurative to Rome. I am of that opinion.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio (# 4), June 26, 1749: "... the Catholic Church is signified by the City of Rome alone, in which the bodily presence of this Apostle [Peter] is carefully reverenced“

Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Now, tell me what city is known for having seven hills? Rome. The Geneva Bible notes state this obvious truth by saying "[c]hildren know what the seven hilled city is, which is so much spoken of".

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

In the Roman Catholic Church, bishops wear (are arrayed with) purple, and cardinals wear scarlet (purple)! Cardinals are at the top, and bishops at the bottom. The golden cup can be seen as the chalice cup that is full of wine at the mass.

Revelation 17:5 - And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Revelation uses "her" and "mother". I know that the bride of Christ is indeed a "her" but let us examine what Papists themselves call their church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: "For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, 'the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful'?"

Revelation 17:15 - And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Pope Pius XII, Fidei donum (# 46), April 21, 1957: “Now, our holy Mother the Church is indeed the Mother ‘of all nations, of all peoples, as well as of individual persons…”

Revelation 17:6-7 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

I think that John marveled at her because he saw a church claiming to be Christian, and because it has rose to such grandeur he had great admiration. But the angel corrects him. What about the martyrs of Jesus? The Roman church has shed plenty of Christian blood. Look at the Waldensians, Lollards, Albigensians, Hussites and many more.

Revelation 17:2 - With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 6), May 24, 1824: "Come therefore to this holy Jerusalem, a priestly and royal city which the sacred seat of Peter has made the capitol of the world. Truly it rules more widely by divine religion than by earthly domination.“

The words that were used when popes were crowned were: Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse patrem principum et regum, rectorem orbis in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum ("Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom is honour and glory for ever and ever").

Although the popes do not have as much power as they did in the past when they controlled kings, they still hold political power.



As for the pope being antichrist.

All Roman priests are called an "alter Christus" which means "another Christ" or "in persona Christi" meaning “in the person of Christ”.

He also holds the title of "Vicar of Christ". This title is blasphemous as it is found in the epistles of Tertullian in the 3rd century, with a different theological slant to refer to the Holy Spirit, that is, as Christ is not physically performing miracles in the Church, Holy Spirit acts as his Vicar on his behalf, performing miracles and preventing the Church err.

He also holds the title of "Holy Father". In John 17:11 Jesus calls God the Father "Holy Father". But the bishop of Rome has stolen that name that was properly used by Jesus for his Father.

So, popes claim to hold three titles that rightfully belong to God alone. Three titles of each person of the Holy Trinity.
 
Last edited:

blood-bought

Puritan Board Freshman
Wow thanks for this exposition. Quite helpful!

You are welcome my brother.

So where did you find these quotes by these various popes so quick? :O

I copied and pasted it from a page of my ppt presentation. It is not finished but I have other interesting studies such as one where you can use scripture to disprove the claim that Peter was for over 25 years in Rome creating the church.
 

joebonni63

Puritan Board Freshman
well we know Peter was not the first pope but he might have started the first church wow that's an awesome thought the first christian church. the problem is every denomination claims it was there church he started. great except the reformed church who takes all things into account. we always look at history, philosophy, government, and just plain facts. i feel that if every denomination would be reformed if they followed that principal. ok now to the anti-Christ i think it's a figure of speech not that it's not rome but could it also be a roman type government like the united states. a lot of people fight over revelation it's dream so it's mostly things you would have to figure out. then the other side says it's facts all these things will happen in the future. i think the anit-Christ is a muslium and iraq is where babylon is so timé will tell btw i have always thought this. as far as the RCC is concerned it's like Jesus that group is doing things in your name and are not followers. Jesus answer don't worry about they anyone doing things in my name is ok. (short version)...'.....
 

blood-bought

Puritan Board Freshman
Let me write the case against the claim of Rome that Peter was there for 25 years. I have used sources for research, mainly this site but where these points are found are in scripture.

Around 45 AD, Peter was put into prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12:3-4).

Around 50 AD, Peter is at the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15 and possibly Galatians 2).

Peter was also involved in the Incident at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12). It is not made clear whether this is after or before the Council at Jerusalem but I personally think that it is after 50 AD.

The church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans about AD 57, he greets some fifty people in Rome by name, but not Peter whom he knew. Surely if Peter was the bishop and was busy building the church then Paul would had greeted the disciple.

When Luke writes about Paul's two year stay in Rome for two years (Acts 28) there is no mention of Peter. Again, if Peter was being an important and busy bishop then surely there would be at least one mention of his name.

We hear of Peter in the city of Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). As you have read in my previous post that I speculate that Babylon is a codename for Rome. Now, I am of this opinion, but if this is true then that would make it the only mention of Peter in Rome in the whole of scripture. If my position is wrong then that makes the Papist claim even less supported.

Four years after Paul wrote Romans he was imprisoned Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar, and Christians at Rome came to meet him (Acts 28:15). Peter is not mentioned.

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation (Romans 15:20).

When Paul arrived in Rome he called together the chief Jews (Acts 28:17), and taught them about Christianity (Acts 28:22-23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Now, what does all of this mean? How could the Jewish leaders know so little about the Gospel, if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 20 long years before this time? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.

Paul remained in Rome, in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter.

Four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2nd Timothy. Paul said that no man came to him and that they forsook him. Would the bishop of Rome forsake the apostle Paul?

Before Paul died in 65 AD, he tells us that the only one who was with him was Luke (2 Timothy 4:11).


So, with all this knowledge it makes the claim seem rather unlikely. Now, the question is why would Rome make up a lie? I say that they needed it to legitimize the church that was governed by the Roman Empire, an enemy that persecuted many Christians both before and after conversion.
 

johnny

Puritan Board Sophomore
I recommend you read Riddlebarger's book "The man of sin" for a better understanding of his position.
The case is not for one Antichrist but rather many, with one final Antichrist before Christ's return.
Have we not seen this in the history of our world played out over and over.
Popes have often been Antichrist's but so have Dictators and also Ministers.
(How about Jim Jones, does he not qualify?)

The warning from the scriptures is that they are out there right now, and will be active until the final consummation.

Blessings and peace in your further studies on this most interesting of subjects :)
 

Loopie

Puritan Board Freshman
Also, shouldn't we consider the fact that the original recipients of Revelation would have understood what John was talking about? Being that he wrote to seven specific churches in Asia Minor, the message of Revelation was something that likely would have made sense to the Christians living at that time. When they heard about seven hills, the beast, and the number 666, it seems doubtful that they would have come away from it thinking, "What is a Pope?" or "Who is Mussolini?". It would seem that the Emperor Nero was in view there. That being said, this does not prevent the text from presenting a 'greater fulfillment' or an anti-type to the type. As an example, Emperor Nero would simply have been a type of the ultimate Anti-Christ, something that perhaps has been fulfilled later in the office of Pope or will be fulfilled in an even later figure associated with the 'man of sin/lawlessness'.
 

ijunn

Puritan Board Freshman
And what I was thinking about just now. Lets say that the pope fullfills the scriptures concerning the man of lawlessness and the beast from revelation. And if the harlot is the roman catholic church, what then is the eastern orthodox church? Any ideas?
 

blood-bought

Puritan Board Freshman
And what I was thinking about just now. Lets say that the pope fullfills the scriptures concerning the man of lawlessness and the beast from revelation. And if the harlot is the roman catholic church, what then is the eastern orthodox church? Any ideas?

Good question, and the Eastern church has very similar heresies.

Here are some reasons that I can think of: Rome was the capital of the Roman empire, not Constantinople. The Roman church is larger and more powerful than the Eastern. It was Rome that the reformers were protesting against, not Constantinople. It is the bishop of Rome that claims authority of the Church and papal infallibility, but although there is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople they do not claim to have the authority that the pope does. Rome has murdered more people, look at the crusades and massacres of groups such as the Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, etc.
 

joebonni63

Puritan Board Freshman
Also, shouldn't we consider the fact that the original recipients of Revelation would have understood what John was talking about? Being that he wrote to seven specific churches in Asia Minor, the message of Revelation was something that likely would have made sense to the Christians living at that time. When they heard about seven hills, the beast, and the number 666, it seems doubtful that they would have come away from it thinking, "What is a Pope?" or "Who is Mussolini?". It would seem that the Emperor Nero was in view there. That being said, this does not prevent the text from presenting a 'greater fulfillment' or an anti-type to the type. As an example, Emperor Nero would simply have been a type of the ultimate Anti-Christ, something that perhaps has been fulfilled later in the office of Pope or will be fulfilled in an even later figure associated with the 'man of sin/lawlessness'.

Eric,

yeah like a form of slang so true, also so time Jesus brings up diff types of love right away they would know exactly know what He was saying. In English we have explain because we have just one meaning for that one word but several words that explain something like that.
 

joebonni63

Puritan Board Freshman
Let me write the case against the claim of Rome that Peter was there for 25 years. I have used sources for research, mainly this site but where these points are found are in scripture.

Around 45 AD, Peter was put into prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12:3-4).

Around 50 AD, Peter is at the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15 and possibly Galatians 2).

Peter was also involved in the Incident at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-12). It is not made clear whether this is after or before the Council at Jerusalem but I personally think that it is after 50 AD.

The church in Rome was already flourishing when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans about AD 57, he greets some fifty people in Rome by name, but not Peter whom he knew. Surely if Peter was the bishop and was busy building the church then Paul would had greeted the disciple.

When Luke writes about Paul's two year stay in Rome for two years (Acts 28) there is no mention of Peter. Again, if Peter was being an important and busy bishop then surely there would be at least one mention of his name.

We hear of Peter in the city of Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). As you have read in my previous post that I speculate that Babylon is a codename for Rome. Now, I am of this opinion, but if this is true then that would make it the only mention of Peter in Rome in the whole of scripture. If my position is wrong then that makes the Papist claim even less supported.

Four years after Paul wrote Romans he was imprisoned Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar, and Christians at Rome came to meet him (Acts 28:15). Peter is not mentioned.

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation (Romans 15:20).

When Paul arrived in Rome he called together the chief Jews (Acts 28:17), and taught them about Christianity (Acts 28:22-23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Now, what does all of this mean? How could the Jewish leaders know so little about the Gospel, if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 20 long years before this time? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.

Paul remained in Rome, in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter.

Four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2nd Timothy. Paul said that no man came to him and that they forsook him. Would the bishop of Rome forsake the apostle Paul?

Before Paul died in 65 AD, he tells us that the only one who was with him was Luke (2 Timothy 4:11).


So, with all this knowledge it makes the claim seem rather unlikely. Now, the question is why would Rome make up a lie? I say that they needed it to legitimize the church that was governed by the Roman Empire, an enemy that persecuted many Christians both before and after conversion.

Yeah that's so true but it's funny how the RCC puts Peter as the first pope lol. Using Paul would actually take that church down .............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top