The Antichrist

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:1ae78e3239]
So, we have Rev 19:1-6 here. What are the people rejoicing over? Seems like the destruction of something. What is it? "He has judged the great prostitute." Who is "the great prostitute?" Well, this language is used of apostate Israel many times (cf. Isa. 1:21; Jer. 2:20-24, 30-33; 3:1-3; Eze. 16, 23; Hos. 9:1, etc). Who has commited adutary and whored herself? Israel. Furthermore, we know it is Israel because we are told that the one being judged has "the blood of His servents" Who killed the prophets? Israel (cf. Matt. 23: 29-37; Acts 7:51-52). [/quote:1ae78e3239]

Another thing to consider here Paul is that the description given here of the prostitute doesn't match the description of apostate Israel. I agree, Israel was accussed of such prostitution. But the scope of influence of the prostitute in Revelation is much larger. It is global in scope.
Consider these passages in Rev. 17:
1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me,[1] "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."

18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth."

And Rev. 18:
3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury."

23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."

And Rev. 19:
2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication;



And Revelation speaks of the prostitute and the beast as allies working together, though the ten kings are described as hating her. That doesn't really fit the description of Jerusalem or Israel, who was destroyed by the beast (if you think the beast to be Nero or Rome) when the Scriptures have the Prostitute being judged by God with the smoke of her burning rising up forever. Plus, Jerusalem never had such a global influence as is described here (nor was she ever really an ally of Rome, hence the human reason for her destruction in 70 AD by the Romans). All the nations of the world, partook of the harlots abominations. This prostitute is much bigger than apostate Israel.
 
the prostitute is america it only makes sense new york is the worlds largest port and by my estimates its only a matter of time before its nuked and the merchants of the world mourn her loss.

blade
 
[quote:48ecd78598][i:48ecd78598]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:48ecd78598]
the prostitute is america it only makes sense new york is the worlds largest port and by my estimates its only a matter of time before its nuked and the merchants of the world mourn her loss.

blade [/quote:48ecd78598]
Your getting closer Nathan :detective:
 
Patrick,
the three babylons consist of Rome,New York(because rockefeller rules there, and the real babylon in I raq now takin over by the roman churchs pawn.

Also there could eb afourth modern day babylon that being Jerusalem.

blade
 
<EDITED by WEBMASTER>

Before Keith is going to be allowed to post on this board, he is going to offer the webmaster an apology for his attitude through email correspondance. He can email the apology to [email protected] and direct it to "webmaster". He will not be allowed to post until that happens.

CMM

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by webmaster]
 
[quote:f3ef4cfeab][i:f3ef4cfeab]Originally posted by Keith Dotzler[/i:f3ef4cfeab]
The Reformation. The two witnesses (preachers, teachers, and prophets in every age). The list goes on. Everything was sent by God and His amazing grace, that His elect would be able to recognize, separate from, and do battle with the beast and its kingdom (NOTE: Popes are CORONATED and receive a CROWN, just like kings). Christians today, if they truly be guided by the Holy Spirit, should EASILY be able to see God's hand working AGAINST Rome, in all its forms.
[/quote:f3ef4cfeab]
I won't deal with the rest of your post yet because there's some personal and hermenuetic issues here we must deal with.
You seem to assume that those who do not hold to this interpretation of Revelation are not guided by the Spirit. Is this true? If so, is it possible for any who do not hold to this interpretation to be saved?

[quote:f3ef4cfeab]
The battles and invasions in the book of Revelation are against APOSTATE, ROMAN CHRISTIANITY, with its head, the PAPACY, and its false bride, the Roman Catholic Church.
[/quote:f3ef4cfeab]
In light of your interpretation of Revelation, how could this book provide any comfort to the 1st century Christians to whom it was written? There was no Papacy then. There were no Popes. How would these Christians have understood this book? Who would they understand the harlot and beast to be?
 
The scriptures tell us who antichrist is:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son".
1 John 2:22



"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."
1 John 4:3



"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".
2 John 1:7
andreas.


:book:
 
Antichrist's Identity

Dear Puritan Board Members:
In re-reading the posts concerning the identity of the Antichrist (yes, the definite article in Greek is found in 1 John 2:18) I was saddened, but not shocked, by the fact that a Reformed, Puritan Message Board had so many erroneous opinions.

For example, Ian Terrell said
"I don't have any specific knowledge of who this individual will be, and I don't think those specifics will be known until as Paul says "the man of lawlessness will be revealed".

Rembrandt said
"What I haven't been able to figure out, is why does John talk about uncovering the antichrist's identity?..."

Preterist Paul Manata said
"For one, "anyone who denies that Jesus has came in the flesh, that man is the antichrist." So, basically we have a large majority of the earth's population. And the pope would not fall under this definition."


Nathan Brandal suggests Pink's work on The Antichrist. However, Pink had since refuted this work, admitting his ignorance of prophecy. Nathan also theorized America as the great whore of Rev. 17. Matt, the website founder, apparently agrees that Nathan is on the right track with this preposterous interpretation.

Of all the members who posted, only Seth Stark agreed with the WCF.

Pastor Bill Paul suggested
"If "anti" in antichrist means [i:7cc91e71a4]instead of[/i:7cc91e71a4] rather than [i:7cc91e71a4]against[/i:7cc91e71a4] I would readily say that it refers to the Pope. He arrogates to himself many of the Divine titles (Vicar of Christ, Prince of Peace, His Holiness, etc.)."

Yet Bill does not understand that the Greek 'anti' means both [i:7cc91e71a4]instead of[/i:7cc91e71a4] and [i:7cc91e71a4]against[/i:7cc91e71a4] when used as the prefix in Antichrist. Furthermore, it denotes a [i:7cc91e71a4]rival[/i:7cc91e71a4].

Sadly, the absolute lack of understanding in the prophecies concerning the Antichrist are the result of a growing apostasy in the professing Protestant churches. The ordained pastors with formal schooling inherited their errors from seminaries and bible schools, the seed bed of erroneous doctrines. Dallas Theological Seminary is an excellent example of this. Satan has nearly extinguished the true understanding of prophecy, much to his glory, and to the dishonor of Christ and His Body, the saints, martyrs and prophets, who fought the good fight of faith against the known Antichrist for centuries.

Rather than tediously refute all erroneous theories proposed on the board, I bring forward the testimony of Puritan William Perkins, a theologian much admired by the founder of [i:7cc91e71a4]A Puritan's Mind[/i:7cc91e71a4]. In his arguments, Perkins refutes Preterism, a Jesuit false teaching which was then gaining momentum in the churches, and which today holds sway in many Calvinistic churches and schools. Following Perkins, I paste a link to my website in which Francis Turretin, another honored theologian of [i:7cc91e71a4]A Puritan's Mind[/i:7cc91e71a4], refutes Futurism, a Jesuit false teaching which has a stronghold on most evangelical churches today. Both Turretin and Perkins arrive at the same conclusions as to the identity of the Antichrist, the very same conclusion reached by the WCF.

Either these great, distinguished men of God were correct and must be believed by lovers of truth, or they were devoid of wisdom and the Spirit, fooled by Satan, teaching lies for truth, and must be shunned as teachers not sent by God.

Rand Winburn
Director
Protestant Reformation Publications
http://www.iconbusters.com
__________________________________________________________


[size=18:7cc91e71a4]An excellent sermon, plainly proving that Rome is Babylon: and that Babylon is fallen[/size:7cc91e71a4]
[b:7cc91e71a4]Preached long since by a famous Divine [William Perkins], and added as a Commentary to the hardest part of the Revelation.[/b:7cc91e71a4]

[Source: Lectres upon the first chapters of the Revelation: preached in Cambridge, A. D. 1695, by Master William Perkins, and now published for the benefit of this Church, by Robert Hill, Bachelor of Divinitie, to which is added an excellent sermon, penned at the request of that noble and wise Councellor, Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, etc.. (London: Richard Field, 1604).]

"................But now I know what will be objected against me, That I have traveled all in vain, to prove that Babylon is fallen, and that Babylon is Rome: and that I have abused the texts of Scripture, and sentences of old Doctors, to prove the same. For whatsoever is contained either in the Scripture, or in the writings of the ancient Doctors, to prove that Babylon is Rome, is to be understood of Rome under the heathen Emperors, and not under the Popes: and that all this while I have wrested the Scriptures, and forced the Doctors to affirm that which they never thought of. Indeed I will confess that some Prophecies contained in this Revelation, were fulfilled in the heathen Emperors, and that the heathen Empire was an introduction unto Antichrist: but that Antichrist, the great enemy of the church of Christ, and which is principally called Antichrist, could not be any of the heathen Monarchie, I will make manifest by plain demonstrations. And first I will retain this Principle sufficiently proved before, that Rome is the See of Antichrist, and that by authority of Scriptures, and consent of ancient Writers, we can seek him no where but in the Romaine Empire. And now the controversy resteth in this, whether the heathen Emperors or the Pope be he.

First, St. Paul, in the second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, speaking purposely of Antichrist, saith expressly, that he shall sit in the Temple of God, which is the Church of Christ. But it is manifest that the heathen Emperors did not sit in the Church of God, therefore the heathen Emperor is not this Antichrist. And by the same reason it is manifest, that Mohamet is not that especial Antichrist, because he sitteth without the temple of the God, as there be divers that would have these things be understood of Mahomet or Ottomanus: but it is clear as the Sunne at noone days; for as much as neither the heathen Emperors, nor Mahomet, nor Ottomanus sitteth in the Temple or Church of God, that none of them is the great Antichrist, of whom the prophecies of the Scripture are to be expounded.

And where some of them expound the abomination of desolation whereof Antichrist speaketh, to be meant of Antichrist, or at leastwise to be a sign of him, that cannot be understood of the heathen Emperors, or any that is without the Church: for the abomination must stand in the holy place which is in the Temple, which signifies the Church. Now the Pope sitteth in the midst of the Temple of God, and boasteth himself to be God, challenging to himself such authority as is proper only to God, and usurping such honour as is peculiar only to God. Therefore, not in the heathen Emperors, but in the Popes, is this prophecy accomplished.

Another reason to prove that Antichrist (which in this Revelation is foreshown to come into the world) cannot be understood of the heathen Emperors, is taken out of the seventeenth chapter of the same book: for there the Angel interpreting to St. John the mystery of the beast that beareth the harlot, which hath seven heads, signifying seven hills, he declareth also that they signify seven kings, or principle estates, or forms of regiment [government], for so the name of King is often taken in the Prophets and especially in Daniel, at which prophecy St. John borroweth many phrases. Of these seven heads, five, he saith, were fallen, the sixth was precisely then in authority, and the seventh was not yet come, which seventh was the monstrous beast, Antichrist, that was both the seventh and the eighth. Now it is evident that this could not be understood of the heathen Emperors: for Nero the first persecuting [Emperor] was come and gone, and Domitian, another persecutor (by whose tyranny St. John was banished into the Isle of Patmos, where he saw and received this Revelation) was then in authority: so that of the Monarchie or tyranny of heathen Emperors, this could not be understood, and of the Christian Emperors no man will expound it: so that it must needs be turned over to the Pope, for it can rest in no other place: and being referred unto him, all the rest [of this prophecy] have a very apt exposition.

For the city of Rome, and the dominions thereof, hath had seven principle states or forms of regiment [government]: the first state of Kings, the second of Consuls, the third of Decimvir, the fourth of Dictators, the fifth of Triumvir, the sixth of Caesars or Emperors, and the seventh of Popes. Now five of theses states or forms of regiment were fallen and abolished in St. John's time; the sixth, which was the Emperors, in John's time was in his place [already in office], and the seventh, which is the Popes, was not yet come, which was the very beast itself: the Romaine Empire revived and raised up from the bottomless pit of hell, into the usurped tyranny of the Pope. And this is that beast, that sometimes was of wonderful great power and glory in the days of Augustus, and other of his successors, but then much decayed, as if it had not been, although in some way it still existed, but that it should be restored in the usurped authority of the Pope, that claimeth that all the world to be his Diocese: which power cometh not from God, but from the Prince of pride, out of the bottomless pit. But chiefly, let us consider, that the beast although he be but one, yet in account standeth for two, for he is that seventh head and also the eighth. Remember that the Pope challengeth double authority, namely the power of both swords, the spiritual and the temporal. So that in this exposition all things agree most aptly.

Again, it is manifest in the Scriptures, that Antichrist should deceive the world with false doctrine, under pretence and colour of true religion, and therefore, so often times the Scripture warneth men that they should not be seduced by him: which warning is needless if any openly professed enemy of Christ should be that Antichrist. For there is no likelihood that an heathen man, a Jew or Turk should deceive any multitude of true Christians: but he that, under the pretence of the name of Christ, seeketh most of all to deface the honour of Christ, he is a subtle adversary, and the very spirit of Antichrist, as St. John, also in his Epistle doth testify. For in the second chapter speaking of those Antichrists, which were the forerunners of the great Antichrist, he sheweth they went out from the Church. And in the fourth chapter, he calleth them false Prophets, and teacheth men how to know the spirit of Antichrist: He that denieth Jesus to be the Christ, he that denieth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: that is, he that derogates anything from the honor of Jesus to be Christ, in his flesh [not] to have performed the full work of man's redemption, as does the Pope most blasphemously, he is Antichrist. And who so teacheth any such doctrine, speaketh by the spirit of Antichrist. For the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy. Seeing, therefore, that St. John accounteth Antichrist for one that is gone from the Church, and for a false Prophet, it is clear that Antichrist is no heathen Emperor, which was never of the Church, nor yet a false Prophet that took upon him to teach in the Church. The same may be said of Mahomet, who never professed himself to be a Christian, nor yet a Prophet in the Church of Christ, pretending to uphold the religion of Christ, but was an open enemy of the Gospel and our Savior Christ, and altogether without [outside] the Church. By these arguments I doubt not but all men may see that since Babylon is Rome, and that the head of Babylon is Antichrist, that he cannot be any of the heathen Emperors, but is the Pope himself. And therefore, I conclude according to my text, that Rome is fallen, if Babylon is fallen......." (pgs. 365-68.)
________________________________________________________________

Francis Turretin: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin1.htm
 
[quote:3f3cd9d773][i:3f3cd9d773]Originally posted by Rand Winburn[/i:3f3cd9d773]
Sadly, the absolute lack of understanding in the prophecies concerning the Antichrist are the result of a growing apostasy in the professing Protestant churches. The ordained pastors with formal schooling inherited their errors from seminaries and bible schools, the seed bed of erroneous doctrines. Dallas Theological Seminary is an excellent example of this. Satan has nearly extinguished the true understanding of prophecy, much to his glory, and to the dishonor of Christ and His Body, the saints, martyrs and prophets, who fought the good fight of faith against the known Antichrist for centuries.

Either these great, distinguished men of God were correct and must be believed by lovers of truth, or they were devoid of wisdom and the Spirit, fooled by Satan, teaching lies for truth, and must be shunned as teachers not sent by God.
[/quote:3f3cd9d773]

I suggest sir that you change your tone. As with Kenneth above, you are missing the issue in this debate. You seem to make the mark of a faithful teacher as one who can correctly identify Antichrist. But that is certainly not true. A faithful teacher is one who can preach Christ and Him crucified, faithfully. This discussion on the antichrist is done out of a desire to learn, not to declare one unorthodox because they don't agree with one historical interpretation of the identity of Antichrist. The main issue is not what some have historical held, but what do the Scriptures teach? This is an exegetical question being discussed by BELIEVERS. We are seeking truth, not to be pounded by those who disagree. If you cannot enter into this discussion with that mindset than please refrain from posting on this subject.
 
A pair of Questions...

I'm not sure if this should be in a new thread, but my questions do have to do with the antichrist theme. Here they are:

Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.).

1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)

2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)

Anyway, trying to get this thread back to being congenial. As you all know, I agree with the WCF, but I know it is not a condition of salvation (maybe sanctification :p) or of being reformed. So, let's here your responses.

PS- This is probably my favorite topic to discuss, since we can all agree that we are saved and reformed no matter what we believe about this topic.
 
[quote:8633ed0606][i:8633ed0606]Originally posted by sastark[/i:8633ed0606]
I'm not sure if this should be in a new thread, but my questions do have to do with the antichrist theme. Here they are:

Everybody knows that it was the universal belief of the Reformers and the Puritans that the office of the bishop of Rome is the office of Antichrist (he is that man of sin, that son of perdition who exalts himself, etc.).

1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)

2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)

Anyway, trying to get this thread back to being congenial. As you all know, I agree with the WCF, but I know it is not a condition of salvation (maybe sanctification :p) or of being reformed. So, let's here your responses.

PS- This is probably my favorite topic to discuss, since we can all agree that we are saved and reformed no matter what we believe about this topic. [/quote:8633ed0606]

I see the pope and Rome as an [i:8633ed0606]example[/i:8633ed0606] of antichrist(s). Assuredly, during the time of reform, Rome stood alot taller than at present. I am sure, that if we were able to challenge the charge leveled against Rome by the reformers, in that did they mean to imply that Rome was or is the [i:8633ed0606]only[/i:8633ed0606] antichrist, they probably would explain that at that time, it was Rome whom fit the mold and taht quite possibly there could even be more smaller illicit groups that could be considered [i:8633ed0606]antichrist(s)[/i:8633ed0606]........

I could be wrong. I know it's speculative at best. I agree with the WCF!

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:05e3927f4a][i:05e3927f4a]Originally posted by sastark[/i:05e3927f4a]
1- When did this belief stop being taught by reformed pastors? Who was the first notable reformed theologian to deny this and still claim to be reformed? I know the American revisions cut out the portion of the WCF that specifically identify the pope as the man of sin, but didn't a majority (or even all) the Presbyterians who revised the WCF still hold to that belief? (NOTE: I'm not saying that your opinion of who the antichrist is is some sort of litmus test of being reformed.)
[/quote:05e3927f4a]
I don't know who the first theologian was to depart form teh Reformers/Puritans. but I think the biggest influence was the fact that there were new religious developements within the Protestant churches which proved that there was more to the religion of Antichrist than simply Roman Catholicism. Rationalism was rearing it's ugly head at the time, and liberalism soon followed.

[quote:05e3927f4a]
2- For those of you who do not hold to the WCF on the bishop of Rome being the man of sin, how can you justify departing for the reformers on this point? I'm not saying the reformers were infallible - certainly they were men like the rest of us - but, how could every single one of them be wrong on this? And, how could they all be wrong in exactly the same way? (In other words, if they all had their own opinions on the identity of the man of sin, it would be easier, in my mind, to dismiss them one by one, but they all believed it was/is the pope. So, how do you dismiss this great cloud of witnesses?)
[/quote:05e3927f4a]
The opinions of many in one period of time don't determine what is orthodox. If that were the case, then we would still be celebrating the Mass. What is important is our exegetical basis for coming to our conclusions. Using Perkin's quote above, I find some flaws in exegesis. One, he is using the lense of history to interpret that prophecy rather than comparing Scripture with Scripture. He claims the Pope fits the description of the one who would "sit in the temple" and on that point I agree. The Pope was certainly antichristian and corrupted the Church from within. But there are many more antichristian teachers like that today in the Church who could care less what the Pope thinks.
And the question I have failed to see answered by those holding to the Reformers view on this is, how would this prophecy be any comfort to the first century Christians who first recieved this letter? We understand that we must interpret Paul and Peter's epistle's in their historical contexts first before deriving principle of application for us today. But for some reason, people seem to skip this step when trying to interpret Revelation. The book of Revelation would have very little application to first century Christians if the Pope was the Antichrist simple because there was no Pope. Perkins even admits this fact above.
So there are some considerations to think about in interpreting the text. :wr50:
 
This brings a question to my mind - since the office of the Pope is that of Antichrist according to the first WCF - did they recognize Roman Catholic baptism (no groaning!) as being legitimate? I was told they did - so how could they hold the two together? Also, if anyone wants to throw out any materials where I could read about the history behind the WCF I'd be much obliged.
 
The Pope can't be the man of sin or Antichrist! After all, he gave us the "greatest evangelism tool of the last 2,000 years" !

:banghead: :deadhorse:


By the way, I'm kidding.
 
[quote:4f2a5cee95][i:4f2a5cee95]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:4f2a5cee95]
Fred,
Whats scarey is that you have to actually post, "I'm kidding"! [/quote:4f2a5cee95]

Scott,

I know. After all you know me well, but not everyone else knows that I am a slave to the Confession, placing it above Scripture, stuck in the past, holder of man-made positions, etc. etc. :blah1: :blah1: :rant:




By the way, I'm kidding again. :banghead: :candle:
 
I have read most of you guys arguments and I think I am going with Bladestunner on this one. David Hasselhoff quite possibly could be the one. Hasselhoff that's German isn't it, hey maybe there is a link between him and Arnold.:think:
 
My Pastor did antichrist yesterday

I'll go over my notes and get back to you. I think he might have used Hasselhoff in an acronym
 
[quote:eaa9bf7df7][i:eaa9bf7df7]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:eaa9bf7df7]
Yes all we need is hasselhoff standing in a jewish tmepl in israel and were set. :lol:

blade [/quote:eaa9bf7df7]
Ok. What do you guys have against the Night Rider?:cool:
 
See night rider he rides a at night signifies hes the anitchrist. Maybe we can invite him on the board and ask. Thats if he passes bootcamp:lol::lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
The Antichrist
Replies
11
Views
5K
Glenn Ferrell
Glenn Ferrell
JM
  • Locked
The antichrist defeated
Replies
4
Views
4K
Peairtach
Peairtach
Jeri Tanner
AntiChrist
Replies
2
Views
664
Phil D.
Phil D.
JM
This is the Antichrist
Replies
0
Views
651
JM
JM
M
  • Locked
PHILIP MAURO & the antichrist ?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mayflower
M
Back
Top