The OP is about the AntiChrist as written in The Bible.
Is there a way to rule out someone with 100% certainty that they are not the AnitChrist, esp. political figures? That is without killing them.
I don’t think so.
The term ‘antiChrist’ only appears in The Gospel of John (New International Version), but assuming the beast that appears in Chapter 13 of Revelation, this dragon thing that rules over all nations for a time, is, no.
I mean, how could you? It’s already this huge weird-ass metaphor. Anything you try to rule out through literal interpretation won’t work.
i heard the antichrist is supposed to be jewish (or of hebrew descent) and is supposed to rise to power in europe. so, no, president bush is not the antichrist. i don’t think.
Bup just has to be right, so if I may hijack, a little…
My theory on the “number of the beast” (which I’ve been trying to popularise for more than 20 years, so please pass it on).
IIRC the Romans forced their number system on all “occupied” territories.
The 6 lowest Roman numerals DCLXVI correspond to 666*.
That’s the end of my theory really – John was just trying to paint the Romans (and those who acquiesced to their diktats) with a pretty wide and blackened brush. Never mind the mysticism, feel the slyness.
*Q. how would John have notated this?
kanicbird:
As with so many things religious, this, too, does not have a single, universally accepted meaning. You can find a plethora of definitions and interpretations if you search. There are three explanations which are more commonly known, however.
First, though, one needs to have an idea about what “Anti-Christ” means. One possible fulfillment would be someone that is the polar opposite of Christ; such as the typical figure of the Devil, with horns, pointy tail and pitchfork, which literally oozes evil. Another possible fulfilment would be someone who wrongfully claims to be Christ, impersonates Him, and tries to take His place; a usurper of sorts. Yet another possible fulfilment would be someone who, while not claiming to be Christ, takes to himself some (or all) of Christ’s authority; acting on His behalf without His command or consent.
With these various understandings in mind one can see how the more common explanations came about. Those who hold to the first possibility generally believe the AntiChrist to be Satan himself in some incarnate form. Alternatively, it could be one of his minions or a human to serve as the figurehead but who is completely under his control. (This could possibly be someone like the character Damien Thorn in “The Omen”.) Those who hold to the second possibility look for someone who will claim to be another incarnation of Christ, complete with signs and miracles, but about whom something just isn’t quite right. Those who hold to the third possibility generally see not just an individual but rather an entire religious system that takes to itself prerogatives belonging only to God. (Many who have held this view have commonly gone on to claim that the religious system which most clearly fulfils this definition is the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.)
So to answer your question, whether or not someone can be ruled out as the AntiChrist depends on which explanation you accept. This being a matter of religious opinion rather than a factual question, if this thread continues, it will likely get moved to Great Debates.
Yep.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
[ nitpick ]
The word antichrist appears in two of the Epistles of John, not the Gospel.
[ /nitpick ]
As bup correctly noted, however, the association of “antichrist” with the prophecies of Revelation are simply later interpretations. As used in the letters that John wrote, the word antichrist simply indicates any person whose actions or words are in opposition to the message of love and salvation that were brought by Jesus. John explicitly says that there are many antichrists. There is no connection to any specific person who is supposed to bring ruin upon the world.
The entire list of antichrist references in the New Testament follow (NIV):
1 John 2
1 John 4:
2 John 1:
Since the author of the letters of John is unlikely to be the same person as “John the Divine,” the author of Revelation, there is no need to presume that the antichrists of the epistles have anything to do with the Beast of Revelation. (And since the book of Revelation was written in an apocalyptic style to comfort the Christians of Asia Minor during the mid 90s, there is no reason to presume that it is actually forecasting physical events that are in our future.)
Either by writing out the Greek words for six hundred sixty and six or by using the Greek characters (letters used to represent numbers). The three digits for 666 in Greek were [symbol]CX[/symbol]F (where the last character was actually the obsolete digamma, since the Greeks were not using the Roman F.)
We have had several earlier threads on the “666” question:
Why is this post evil?
Why is the mark of the beast “666”?
The Number of the Beast
Revelation is, among other things, a political propaganda tract, with the names changed to avoid prosecution. “Babylon” means Rome. The Beast is the Emperor Nero or possibly Domitian, either of whose names can be rendered into Greek and made to add up to 666. How can this be applied to the modern world?
Another problem is that Jesus, based on a lot of his red-letter pronouncements, actually expected the world to end within his lifetime. (I mean his natural, pre-Resurrection lifetime.) And his followers of the first generation or two expected the same thing – the imminent end of the world. (This was in direct continuation of the tradition of the Essenes, an apocalyptic Jewish sect that clearly influenced Jesus’ thinking even if he was not, as as some have speculated, a member.) That’s what the early Christians were thinking when they wrote Revelations and apocalyptic passages in other books of the New Testament. And all of them were wrong. Jesus was wrong, and his followers were wrong. What is the point of trying to apply their folly to our own time?
Just curious: Any evidence that Jesus was influenced by the Essenes? Aside from some vague similarities of imagery (that does not occur in every Gospel), I have seen nothing to indicate a connection. All the information I have seen indicates more of a general set of beliefs common throughout all of first century Judea (much as some current opponments of the World Monetary Fund might use some phrases shared by followers of Adam Smith, even though the two groups are not preaching the same message).
I’ve also stumbled over another thread discussing “The Beast” and 666 and all that:
666 is not a number? (DCLXVI)
No, I’ve never encountered any direct evidence, but a lot of scholars have pointed out the similarity of some of Jesus’ teachings to some Essene doctrines – including the coming Apocalypse – and they were contemporaries. Some have even speculated Jesus was an Essene at some point although there is no proof of this. According to Josephus, in Jesus’ time the three main factions of Judaism were the Essenes (monastic cult), the Pharisees (puritanical religious scholars) and the Sadducees (hereditary priests and their followers). The Sadducees faded after the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple, leaving them with nowhere to perform sacrifices. The Pharisees eventually became the Rabbis who have dominated Judaism ever since. The Essenes vanished – but their ideas might have had some influence on Christian doctrine.
Speaking of the Pharisees . . . Jesus, for all that he often excoriated the Pharisees as hypocrites, really had a lot in common with them. He had a scriptural citation ready for every argument, just like any good Yeshiva bucher. And Jesus shared the Pharisee belief in a morally relevant afterlife – Heaven and Hell. I think his problem with the Pharisees was that they were too stuck-up and exclusive. That’s the point of parables like the toilers in the vineyard: The owner is God; the laborers who have toiled since sunrise are the Pharisees – those who have always been pious and righteous, and know it; the laborers who come late in the day are repentant sinners, the kind Jesus was always trying to bring into his following. At the end of the day they all get the same wage of one denarius. The point of the story was that repentant sinners will be welcomed into Heaven on the same terms as the always-righteous, even if that does not seem fair to the latter.
From my reading, Jesus was probably very much in the tradition of the Pharisees and his condemnation of their leadership tended to be directed toward the excess legalism and their love of rank and power, not against the basic teachings of the Pharisee movement with which the early Christians shared many points.
The connections between Essene teachings and Jesus (or the early Christians) seem to be much more tenuous.
I like it! It will be a Holy Hand Grenade in my next RL debate on the subject.
Regarding the OP: Is it accepted that the Antichrist is necessarily immortal?
immortal?
Nope, he gets thrown into the Lake Of Fire forever.
Depends what you mean by immortal though.
He has to be a male, so being a woman would rule someone right out.
Mr B. Re-read tomndebb’s post regarding the word “antichrist” as it is actually used in the Epistles of John as opposed to how it is used in popular culture. “Antichrists” (plural) are descriptors for those who are seen as antagonistic to the teachings of Christianity. It can also be use for apostates who falsely represent Christian teachings.
It has nothing to do with the “Beast” of Revelation. The word “antichrist” does not appear in Revelation.
The “Beast” was the Roman Emperor. It is not, as is supposed in some quarters, some futuristic manifestation of Satan. That is a tradition which has come about only within the last couple of centuries and only within a minority of American Christians.
Sop the answer to your question is no. Neither the “Beast” nor the “antichrists” referred to in the NT are intended to represent figures who are either immortal or supernatural. They are human enemies of Christianity.
Thank you, Diogenes.
From the OP: “…as written in The Bible…”
Going down the popular-culture road was my mistake.
Your words bear repeating:
**“Antichrists” (plural) are descriptors for those who are seen as antagonistic to the teachings of Christianity.
Neither the “Beast” nor the “antichrists” referred to in the NT are intended to represent figures who are either immortal or supernatural. They are human enemies of Christianity.**
Depends if we’re assuming literality or not (yeah, I made up a word, bite me). If there’s literally a giant poly-headed dragon beast raoming about marking “666” on people, hey, it’s a safe bet. But that takes all the fun out of the “Guess which politician and/or religious figure is the antichrist this week” game.
Sans literality, I’m gonna have to say no. The imagery is so bizarre it could be twisted to mean anything. And the Bible backs up and takes a couple running starts at the end of the world, so you even have a few options on what you’re going to interpret to fit your mood.
laigle:
There is a reason for the bizarre imagery in Revelation. It was an apocalpse, a genre of literature which used coded allegaory as a means to communicate subversive political and religious ideas which would not be readily understood by the unititiated. Revelation was written at the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian who persecuted Christians and Jews. The author was attempting to reassure the faithful that God would have the last word and that Domitian (the “Beast”) would be punished.
The 666 is probably a numeric rendering of Caesar Neron (Nero). It was popularly believed at the time that Domitian was Nero either in disgue or reincarnated.
Some of the other well known images include the “Whore of Babylon” which was a personification of the Rome and the “mark of the Beast” which was the currency with Caesar’s face on it.
The imagery of revelation is not really that bizarre or baffling if one understands the genre and the historical context.
Those people who claim it already happened or it was allegorical, what do they make of the 2 witnesses who were bodily resurrected up to Heaven in front of ALL eyes?
Can you be specific about which passage you’re referring to? I think I know but I just want to be sure before I pop off.
Never mind, vanilla, I know the passage you’re referring to.
It is not my position that no predictive prohesy at all was intended in Revelation but that it dealt primarily with events at the end of the first century and that its purpose was to give comfort to the persecuted and tell them not to lose faith.
The witnesses who are raised up are a symbolic way to say that those who spread the word of God will ultimately be rewarded by God, and will be recognized by humans for their virtue, even if they are punished, brutalized, even killed for their deeds by the Romans. The “ascension” is an allegory, an illustration, not a literal event.