Front PageAntichrist Is Alive and Well and Living Among Us
Submitted by bill on Tue, 02/13/2007 - 15:09. antichrist christ duality harmony the commons unity
The Antichrist is alive and well and living among us. Sounds a bit like a book from the 1970s doesn't it? Do people really believe in this Antichrist fellow? Well, it was originally plural as in Antichrists, and I know they exist, just not the way most people think of Antichrist. They are here, and they may even be us. To understand how, we need to forget what we've heard that Antichrist is from popular fictional books about the End Times and look to the book of 1 John, where the term was first used.
The community John writes to has suffered a painful split. As their spiritual leader, John encourages them to regain strength in the original teaching and to not allow the claims of those “who went out” to discourage them. He refers to those who went out as Antichrists because they reject that the Christ came in the flesh. However, we need to examine what he means by coming “in the flesh” before we can know what an Antichrist is.
We also need some definitions.
Christ is of course the Greek word for Messiah or Anointed One. But in the the Gaeco-Roman world the term had also merged with Logos—we know this from NT scripture. It is more than a person—it is a promise.
Anti means to oppose or to reject.
Believe means to trust in and to highly regard something or someone so much that you follow that something or someone and mold your life around it. It does not mean accepting as fact something that can't be verified. It is the verb form of belief which means faith which means to regard highly, and to consider trustworthy. (example: “I believe in my wife.”)
Life means a meaningful life. The opposite of a meaningless life of mere existence.
Eternal Life is a complete and meaningful life. Actually, a very significant life that goes on after physical death. There are many ways to define this. Think of any great person whose contributions to humanity live on.
Death is the lack of Life, or meaninglessness—it is nihilism.
Therefore, Word of Life is the divine rules or principles that lead one to a meaningful life. Those who listened so intently to the Word of Life sought desperately for meaning in their lives. Many could likely hope only for meaning to come in an afterlife, but all would have sought meaning in their present life. For that was the point of many of the prevalent mystery religions of the age. Life, meaningful life, eternal life, these describe the heartfelt hopes of the people who followed these teachers and hung on their every word.
John begins his letter to this schismatic church by reminding them of his original message and what they have as a common goal and what it is that brings them together.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us;… (1 John 1:1-10 ESV)
John is of course talking about the Christ, the Anointed One, the Logos. In the prelude to his gospel he told us: “In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God.” And his Hellenist followers would have understood that Logos is a complex concept that is God and is also one who stands between God and the material world. The mediator is necessary because in Hellenism, God is pure and cannot touch the material world and so sends his Logos to stand in the gap. But this Logos is made manifest—made flesh—Johns says. “We looked upon and have touched” he exclaimed. This, everybody knows is what John means by coming in the flesh. So this Logos is of divine origin and is made manifest, which allows fellowship—a special fellowship. A fellowship now threatened by those who rejected the core principles upon which the fellowship was built. This describes how the divine principle for human “life” is made manifest, but let's look at another example of Christ in the flesh, this time from Paul
As Paul describes how the many make up one to become Unity—a concept not at all unknown to his Hellenized audience. For they know that the perfect world is made up of many parts, many in distribution as well as association but that this many makes up a perfect whole or Unity. Paul uses this concept to explain how they are to be as a congregation and as a church. For Paul, Unity is the result of following the directions. Unity is intended consequences, and it is their purpose for meeting as a group.
There is one body and one Spirit—…— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.…And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith… (Ephesians 4:4-13)
There is one entity and there are many entities—but they are all Unity. This body of Christ is built up of saints equipped for service by apostles, prophets and teachers, etc. It is made up of people, not a person. Oh, but Paul is speaking metaphorically, someone will say. Yes, I would answer, and so is John. In fact, metaphor and allegory are regular players in sacred texts. These are the language of the soul. They communicate with the inner person beyond the intellect. But let's not stop here, let's look at one more writer to see how this body of Christ works. Let's look at the description that Luke gives us of the early followers.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts… (Acts 2:42-47)
This is how Luke described the early group, the body of Christ, after they had been filled with the Spirit. I'm not preaching to anyone and I don't expect you to accept any claims of supernatural activity, nor am I trying to push Christianity on anyone. My point is that there is a certain “spirit” of sharing among people and that this is one of the major characteristics of what is called the body of Christ. Furthermore, the Christ principle of loving others, etc is known to produce exactly this kind of spirit. I hope my point is made well enough because now I'm going to shift gears and look at the other side.
The problem for the Johannine community was that the Logos that had been there was now split by negative forces who rejected the manifested Christ. The group had been a functioning whole but are now split asunder and left to worry about the meaning of it all. They have lost their purpose. Those “who went out” have robbed them of their Unity. Antichrists do not believe (trust in, follow) the ideas that God-in-us can be made flesh. They suck the Christ Spirit out of an organization with legalism or other kinds of “anti” philosophies and attitudes. In my experience, the Antichrist is often just ignorance of the role that Spirit must play. Instead, the Antichrist spirit is often manifested as concerns over trivia. Unimportant things such as ritual and dogma, or command and control are prized at the expense of the most valuable of all—the Christ abiding. Or, God-in-us. In other words, the Antichrist performs the opposite functions of the Christ. It destroys Unity.
So, the Christ builds up the many into one. The way this occurs will have to come in another post, but I will mention that it requires giving up self and duality—it requires love and tolerance. Antichrist, on the opposing side, rejects these principles and in many way reintroduces duality, which destroys harmony, and selfishness which together destroys Unity leaving only doubt and meaninglessness. Does this sound like something you've experienced? Well I have too. And I've contributed as well. It is a danger that always lurks at the borders of human harmony and unity.
Antichrist is not the bad guy in some horror movie. He may be us. Whether we subscribe to Christianity or Rationalism, the same principles are at work to destroy the hard work put into building up cooperative groups of Good Will among people. We must always be on guard. Unity and Harmony can only occur under circumstances of trust and selflessness. As soon as one person determines selfishly to take more, the potential for upsetting the balance of the Commons is awakened. The response of others to this selfishness will determine whether harmony maintains or the duality of us-verses-them emerges. It is this anti harmony force that John is talking about in his letter. It has come, but it has gone away. They must now rebuild from the foundations. It's a common struggle.
In summary, the Christ principle is one that builds up non-duality (acceptance) and harmony while the anti Christ tears down by reintroducing doubt, judgment (duality) and sowing disharmony. This is a problem of humanity. It is not the stuff of End Times horror movies, but is real life. Antichrist is alive and well.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Heresy Encouraged
Submitted by bill on Tue, 02/13/2007 - 16:59.
Virgil,
Thanks for your remarks. I would like to hear more about the context you speak of and especially what it means to you. In other words, what your opinion of the matter is.
Anyway, I did look at the preterist site that you mentioned, but I hadn't read past the third sentence before I ran into the H word. Yes, there it was in the third sentence, a complaint about "Heretically-based" websites. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's the opposition of the Christ of John and Paul. The opposite of Love and Harmony.
bill
» reply
Manifestation of AntiChrist
Submitted by reido on Tue, 02/13/2007 - 18:47.
Bill
I read this with interest. Just beginning Fromm's book, I was impressed by his careful definition (shall we say redefinition?) of love. One of the major chords that he struck was that most people interpret love as "being loved." I thought that was very telling and true of our behavior. That is, love has become a very self-centered expression and in some cases, the very opposite of what love really means.
"AntiChrist" has meant many things down thru the ages. One of those meanings has to do with determinate thinking -- that is, people want to use the expression to point out the individual that was being discussed. John makes it very clear that he was not speaking of an individual. He states there are many. Now, to the point: was he speaking determinately or was he writing about something subjective -- maybe requiring thought into the original meaning of Christos as you wrote, then moving to the antithesis.
How does one manifest the AntiChrist? In determinate views, this is defined by Doctrine. In a more subjective approach, I would be looking for behavior. What kind?
Back to Fromm's definition of love....
This is an age when love is a word used a lot, but nearly devoid of meaning. In fact, many of the current uses are anti-love. This becomes clear in the behavior of those who throw the word around. Is it possible that "Christ" could also be used in a way different from it's original meaning?
reido
» reply
The Body of Antichrist
Submitted by bill on Tue, 02/13/2007 - 19:17.
Reido wrote: This is an age when love is a word used a lot, but nearly devoid of meaning. In fact, many of the current uses are anti-love. This becomes clear in the behavior of those who throw the word around. Is it possible that "Christ" could also be used in a way different from it's original meaning?
Wooohhh! I can see the dust flying already.
Is that which is normally called the "Body of Christ" actually a body of Antichrist? If we use Paul's heuristic from Ephesians as a guide for such a comparison we might just find that many present day "bodies" actually use officers and appointed positions for dividing and judging the body rather than for building it up. In these cases, considering John's antithesis of Paul's Body of Christ as you mentioned, then these bodies are in fact Antichrist Bodies. Who'd have known?
Well, you beat me on that one. I had thought to go so far as to claim that the shrinking church of today was due to the migration of Christ out of the "body." But I hadn't made the next logical step.
Glad you got the book. I'll start too and we can just follow whatever.
bill
» reply
Is there heresy?
Submitted by OpenJoe (not verified) on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 00:01.
[Accidentally ran into my cousin Virgil here. Hi Virgil.]
I perceive Virgil is speaking of a particular anti-christ and Bill is speaking of any person who is anti the Spirit of Christ. Am I correct Virgil and Bill?
Anyway Bill, I see your response to the use of the word heresy. I'm kind of ambivalent about the word right now - I guess it's a concept that dies hard in me because it's been around so long. But on the other hand, for practical purposes it might not matter whether I think it's a valid concept or not because I'm not sure I know anyone who I would consider to be a heretic.
So that makes the point moot with me in a way. But somehow I still feel there might be some people somewhere who might be heretics so that would make the salient point how to love heretics as myself - if I knew any.
But I do take your point about the common use of the term and would agree that calling someone a heretic is usually a power play, power-enhancer, separator, etc. It would be a name that separates persons that God loves from each other. But couldn't anti-christ be a name that has the same effect? Or worse?
Or did I totally misunderstand your use of it?
JWP
» reply
Heresy?
Submitted by Virgil (not verified) on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 09:12.
Guys, I don't see the word "heresy" anywhere on preterism.com - I am a postmodern myself so I would be the last to label anyone else a heretic. Anyways...this is beyond the Antichrist issue.
In the context of the first century, there was one big, important, huge, evil Antichrist...and that was Nero, and he was of immediate relevance to the folks John was writing to. But as Joe pointed out, and as this blog post indicated, there are many other little antichrists which are relevant to all of us, regardless of time and place. Either way, the discussion is important and can open a door for understanding the historical aspect of John's comments and even the fulfillment of the book of Revelation.
» reply
Preterism
Submitted by bill on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 10:09.
Virgil,
Although I missed the site that you sent me to, I did end up at PlanetPreterism.com. There I read around a bit and got a fairly good feel for your perspective. After reading around the site I'll say that your point is well taken.
Here is another point, and it's not meant as a "yeah but" to Virgil's. It's actually complimentary to his point: Contrary to the perspective that Orthodoxy usually takes, it is well and good for us to look at various ways of interpreting and viewing scripture. Of course there are interpretations that are more right and those that are mostly wrong, but I believe that they still have something to teach us. If nothing else, they can teach us that they are wrong.
So, sorry for mixing things up Virgil. I think that "heresy" is mostly good as long as each individual is considerate of every other. But it is surely bad for those intent on consolidating power. Which of course is why all the various heretics were rounded up and silenced by government and church.
bill
» reply
Bill, whenever Christians
Submitted by Virgil (not verified) on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 11:43.
Bill, whenever Christians get involved in heated conversations over who is and who is not a heretic, I try to remind everyone that Christ was one of the biggest heretics of his time. After all, that is why they killed him. He came to advocate love instead of legalism, he came to tear down preconceptions and walls and proclaim an open relationship to God, and that in itself was very much at odds with the establishment.
Regarding other ways of interpretation, I have found that whenever I control my knee-jerk reaction to what some folks say, I learn a lot more than getting in heated debates and disagreements. So Bill, you are making great points here. I may have to stop by more often and chat with you guys :)
» reply
Power Play
Submitted by bill on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 10:55.
OpenJoe wrote: But I do take your point about the common use of the term and would agree that calling someone a heretic is usually a power play, power-enhancer, separator, etc. It would be a name that separates persons that God loves from each other. But couldn't anti-christ be a name that has the same effect? Or worse?
JWP,
Yeah, that's what I thought about Antichrist, that it was name calling. And you may be right. In fact, when I looked at the letter anew recently after several years to prepare for a small group study, I thought: I can't do this, this guy is just blaming those who disagree with him and their minions for the split and I don't want to put out effort to find something good in it to discuss. Keep in mind that this is the first time I'd looked closely at 1 John since experiencing my second church split and having a severe change in perspective of church power and what is useful for building up and what is not. Then I looked again much more closely at the letter and began to realize that John wasn't blaming those he called Antichrists at all. His letter is not about blame but is about encouragement. It's about re-centering. That experience was eye opening for me. And so, I began to look at "Antichrist" differently as well.
However, I can also see the concept that Virgil points out in Preterism. Of course it assumes that the letters and the book of Revelation were written at a specific time, but it is still a good match. It makes good sense if we imagine that the news of Nero's lunacy would have spread and had followers outside of Rome, the city, frightened. It's one of those ideas that is intuitively obvious. That doesn't mean that I must subscribe to Preterism, but I don't have to in order to learn something useful from its perspective. My current trouble with isms is that they all seem too well packaged. So I try to learn what I can and then move on. For example: I currently see no need to interpret prophetic signs, so determining when the second coming was or will be is of no value to me. But I can understand that others see a need to answer unanswered questions.
It's great to discuss scripture and religion with grownups, isn't it?
bill
» reply
Coming clean
Submitted by OpenJoe on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 11:17.
I should come clean and say I do think antichrist is a valid concept and scriptural. And there are such things as heresies - though using the word in name-calling could never be loving, in my opinion.
Maybe I'm trying to sound uncertain because lots of things I see around me are confusing to me. So excuse me; I'm in process.
So, I joined up. Got a faithcommons.org official username. I like the spirit here.
So Bill, what about the big new thing about open source and book writing? That's OK, no pressure. I'll keep watching.
» reply
Joe, I may have to do the
Submitted by Virgil (not verified) on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 11:44.
Joe, I may have to do the same...it looks like the conversation here exciting and beneficial.
» reply
Welcome to faithCommons
Submitted by bill on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 12:22.
Welcome Joe.
OpenJoe asked: So Bill, what about the big new thing about open source and book writing? That's OK, no pressure. I'll keep watching.
Joe, I'm still trying to figure out how to put it. The Antichrist post took me about 4 days with other stuff on top of it. I'm not trying to make excuses. Just explaining why I throw out bits of information and then fail to deliver on them.
Part of this involves a rethinking or re-purposing of my own purpose in this site. Sounds convoluted but I don't want to chance killing something good because I failed to see it and changed the whole site to some idea that I had, without talking it over with others and getting their ideas. Still, I'm trying to do something useful that isn't merely another version of thousands of other spots on the world wide web, and it's hard to describe something that has no example that I can point to and say: like that.
Here are some of the pieces: Faith is not religion but is itself the hope and trust in a meaningful life. Faith is necessary for all human beings, and is not merely religious. Atheists have faith in science and reason. Faith is a universal human thingy. It is a shared resource in that I can either contribute to your faith or I can tear it down. Maybe I am benign in my contribution, but typically, if we share common space, then I will have some effect on your faith by the things I say and do.
Therefore, Faith is a Commons like ground water and air or the global economy. When I engage in name-calling, I have a negative effect on the Common Faith. There are many overlapping areas of faith. We have faith in economics and politics and education, etc. These all merge into a single sense of well being in each individual, but we must understand that there is more than what we call "church" to faith. Once we realize the extent to which our sense of being is affected by faith, we can begin to build more meaningful lives. In the vernacular of the NT writers that would just be Life. I think that's what they meant by Life. Death means meaningless life and Life means meaningful life.
So, I want to expand on the concept that Reido started with cwowi by writing a blook about the Commons of Faith. But not by myself. It could have a better title if someone thinks of one. This blook will be much better with multiple authors, as is open source software. It will never stop, until the ideas run dry. Chapters can be rewritten whenever the author learns something new that leads them to think differently. Updates are listed separately so one need not reread the entire blook every time there is a new release. Authors can contribute from their own weblogs or sites; that is, they can write something for their own audiences and still have it included in the blook. The Commons grows with overlapping readership from various sites and blogs. Still, the purpose is all about building Faith. Not proselytizing.
Good News is about meaningful life, not membership in a religion. This is what will bring the heresiologists out, loaded for bear. There will be of necessity chapters that deal with problematic religion and idolatry that rob one's faith. This is the story of the prophets. Who and what did the prophets of old castigate? Religion seems to start out codifying the way to faith and meaningul life, but later the code becomes more important than the life. It becomes idolatrous. A prophet is needed to clear the air, make straight the paths, and refocus lives on true meaning. I'm not claiming to have that, of course. I'm still trying to figure it all out. But I do know from experience that most followers are struggling to get by in a nihilistic life while paying much money and time to the god of idolatrous religion.
And this blook will be multi-religious and multi-faith. Multi-faith is really a misnomer because Faith is beyond religion. I know that many people from many religions would like to stone me for saying that. But the originating prophets of most religions on the earth today taught as much. For Jesus and Paul, the idea of including the Gentiles in the Good News was exactly this, I'm convinced.
Anyway, I see that I've written way too many words to anwer a simple question. Sorry about that. I hope it makes sense and that I don't come off sounding like some Pollyanna.
bill
» reply
The Spirit of antichrist
Submitted by reido on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 18:08.
All
I use a familiar passage here to show an alternate interpretation -- not the only one, but something to think about.
"18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.
20 And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, [even] he that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise which he promised us, [even] the life eternal. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. 27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.
28 And now, [my] little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him. "
What I am asking us to notice is both the absence and presence of the Greek article 'o (the). Also to note that John has discussed the reader's "anointing" before and after the actual word antichrist appears. Question: Are there accusations and ill treatment that serve as the background for his mention of this word and the correlative anointing which he says they have?
The possible interpretation that I am suggesting is that his use of "the" as specific could be referring to accusations towards a person or a particular group. In his other expressions he omits "the", which may indicate that he is using a word to mean what it means, not to accuse a particular person or group of people.
Why would one suspect that there was something going on behind the scenes that John was addressing? Looking before, at Ch2:7, John begins a passage on love and treatment of your brother -- many of the commentaries I have read make the blunder of assuming that John here changes the subject and goes into a sidebar discussion of how Christians love and heathens do not. There is no indication that John does this -- if read as though it were part of the same epistle, one would assume that he is addressing a particular problem as relates to the way some are being treated. That makes it altogether a different message in John's epistle.
I make it no secret that I believe the people who were being ill treated were pre-Gnostics -- and that John lost the battle of persuading the orthodox of his day to love them and accept their Faith.
reido
» reply
Anointed
Submitted by bill on Wed, 02/14/2007 - 22:32.
Reido asked: Are there accusations and ill treatment that serve as the background for his mention of this word and the correlative anointing which he says they have?
Reido,
Are you suggesting that John is reassuring them by reminding them of their anointing? Or, is the “anointing” language key to their spiritual relationship and he's contrasting their anointing to the lack of such in others?
Maybe I'm being too vague here. Is “anointing” key to pre-gnostic or hermetic or other mystical group characterization?
I've considered “anointing” as a spiritual knowledge or at least an ability to “know” the truth, which he gets to later in the letter. John seems bent on reassuring them that they can know truth already and that they should not feel inferior. This makes me think that the “Antichrists” were likely orthodox or perhaps Judaizers crashing the party perhaps in the same way they did with Paul's followers.
Reido wrote: which may indicate that he is using a word to mean what it means, not to accuse a particular person or group of people.
So, do you think the letter is meant to be read by members of both groups?
bill
» reply
Anointing as a Spiritual Expression
Submitted by reido on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 07:54.
Bill
I was struggling for words and probably didnt come out clearly. The way you put it accurately expresses the regard the pre-Gnostics had for knowledge...
"I've considered “anointing” as a spiritual knowledge or at least an ability to “know” the truth, which he gets to later in the letter."
The symbolism is key to John's use of "to know" in his writings (IMO). Anointing would have been recognized by its meaning and place in pre-gnostic thinking, so the reference assuring them of their anointing would have been comforting. At the same time as his words are comforting to the pre-Gnostics (the only exception being a specific reference to the sonship of Christ, but note that he does not go into doctrinal detail of what that expression carries).
I also think the opposition was meant to read the letter, as he includes many endearing references ("my children") that can be taken both as reassurance to the pre-Gnostics and to the orthodox brethren. But I do not so much see them as endearing so much as to soften the words of correction of the ill treatment that is being given towards the unorthodox believers.
Yes, I think both groups were meant to read and understand that the most difficult application of love is to love those who are different.
Thanks for helping me say this more clearly.
reido
» reply
I learned a new word
Submitted by OpenJoe on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 10:29.
Alright, I learned a new word. A blook on faith - I will certainly be thinking about that. Really I am already thinking. Just thinking how the other day my friend Ken Rideout was saying there are not faiths (in the plural) but only faith.
And is not faith relationship?
Joe
» reply
Faith as a Universal?
Submitted by reido on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 12:16.
Joe
I read the first chapter of Ken's book at his website. He described faith in terms of universal love of which he explained most have some comprehension. From what little I have read of his thinking, I can understand how he might say that there "are not faiths, but only faith."
I am guessing that he means faith as a universal, in contrast to the way many define faith as compliance with and acknowledgement of a particular doctrine? If so, his comparison of knowing there is a God to knowing universal love is all the more wonderful. In many ways I think this was what Jesus was teaching by word and treatment of others.
(BTW, it looks like Ken has been on quite a journey of faith himself from his early beginnings with the conservative CoC to Harding Grad to Fuller and still going. A kindred Spirit?)
reido
» reply
Bill, Sorry I Failed to Answer
Submitted by reido on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 18:31.
Looking back I see you had a specific question about whether the antiChrist could actually be churches (bodies)? I have paraphrased badly. But, I think I can take a shot at a decent answer...
The antichrist (purposely not capitalizing the "C" is more a way of behavior unbecoming the anointing that we have been given than it is a particular person or group. The way I read John, he was using "the" antichrist as an expression only because it had previously been used as a label -- a practice that I do not think he approved of because it destroyed the intent of the gospel.
If applied to a particular group, I think I side more with what you said earlier about how we may all be a part of this. Although, we might all recall days when we were associated with ideologies that were very counter to what Christ stood for.
reido
» reply
Oh I get it!
Submitted by bill on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 21:22.
Reido,
So, John is saying this: "You guys have heard talk about Antichrist coming. Well I tell you many antichrists have come." Meaning that he is turning a pejorative term back on those who first used it?
You have just shifted my paradigm a few notches. It may be off the track, actually. I'm going to have to read it through a few times and think about this one some.
bill
» reply
That's the word
Submitted by reido on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 21:44.
Yeah, pejorative. First time I saw that word I thought it had something to do with perjory. See what you think about that twist. Greek being as accurate as it was, it sure seemed odd to me that the definitate article only appeared once.
reido
» reply
Anti Christ...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 02/22/2007 - 10:53.
Anti ChristHello friends,
From your discussion that I was interestingly following, I have certain points to make.1. Anti Christ is understood as those that are against the teachings of Christ which are fundamentally love, compassion, tolerance and forgiveness. In the discussion I found that many consider the saying of Gospel, “we love God because he loved us first… We can not see God so How can we love the Lord?..”(1 John 4:19) that has been claimed as the basis of Christianity by a learned reader earlier in one of the blogs in reply to my one of the article on FC. Fundamentally love means to love some one and not loving self and being loved by some one is also true to certain extent as correct as long as it is confined to the other person. One can not say that I can’t love the other person till he loves me. It really does not really sound very sound. This again reflects ego that is to be denounced. God has no ego. Therefore he loves us . As long as ego prevails in a human being salvation is only eludes him. This is one of the most important prerequisite for attaining the almighty whom you may call Christ, God, Allah or by any name (Hinduism believes that almighty is only one whom you may call by any name. Hindus have no objection to pray to Jesus who is considered as the God or son of the God. As it is Hindu Gods have sons and people worship them). Most of us suffer from this most cruel and dangerous phenomenon of ego and still unable to over come the aspect. In the present world, most of the people are busy loving themselves and that is called self glorifying. Any one who boasts of self accomplishments in this world is resorting to self glorification and that is self love and this has to be definitely denounced. This should not be misunderstood as a tirade against any criticism against some opinions in the garb of expression ego. 2. The word heretic is generally used for those persons who do not believe in the scriptures of a particular religion and rebels against it. In the view of those who believe in such religion he is an heretic. All those who criticize Jesus Christ can be dubbed as Heretics by the followers of Christianity and all those who criticize Allah or Quran are called Heretics by Muslims. These can be from other faiths or from within faiths. Sufis have been persecuted as heretics. Wahaabi consider every one as heretic who do not subscribe to their views including Muslims. Muslims also use a peculiar word Kafirs for those who do not belong to Islam. It has been commented that Jesus Christ was a Heretic and thus was put to death by the Jewish clergy in league with the ruling Romans. He was heretic in the view of Jews. Jesus was a born Jew and preached his own theory and it was not acceptable to the clergy of Jewish system and he was persecuted till he was crucified. Thus the word Heretic is one way. It is in some ones view. For others he was God. The word Heretic thus has no definite acceptance universally as it is some ones one sided view view. 3. The word anti Christ can be understood as those who defy teachings of Jesus and do not follow his path shown to us. Truly they are many amongst us. In fact such men are there in all societies and in religions. As John warned his listeners about those who did not believe in Christ although externally appeared to have belonged to the group, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) too warned about similar persons who lived in the community and did damage to the belief. There are many who have turned to be atheists who have openly denounced existence of God and such beliefs while some probably do not come out openly for the fear of society. God only would judge them finally. Anti Christ may not also mean that he would not believe in other Gods. As an example a person belonging to other religion may not subscribe to beliefs of Jesus and thus in Christianity. He might be an ardent follower of his God belonging to his religion. Thus he can not be dubbed as atheist universally. He is anti Christ in the view of Christians and other religions. Thus anti Christ can not be assumed to be anti God universally and it has limited application to Christianity. 4. Although the blogs have generated lot of discussion, it has to be examined how this would help any one in terms of faith commons. Probably the word Anti Christ has to be used very judiciously.Dr K Prabhakar Rao
From your discussion that I was interestingly following, I have certain points to make.1. Anti Christ is understood as those that are against the teachings of Christ which are fundamentally love, compassion, tolerance and forgiveness. In the discussion I found that many consider the saying of Gospel, “we love God because he loved us first… We can not see God so How can we love the Lord?..”(1 John 4:19) that has been claimed as the basis of Christianity by a learned reader earlier in one of the blogs in reply to my one of the article on FC. Fundamentally love means to love some one and not loving self and being loved by some one is also true to certain extent as correct as long as it is confined to the other person. One can not say that I can’t love the other person till he loves me. It really does not really sound very sound. This again reflects ego that is to be denounced. God has no ego. Therefore he loves us . As long as ego prevails in a human being salvation is only eludes him. This is one of the most important prerequisite for attaining the almighty whom you may call Christ, God, Allah or by any name (Hinduism believes that almighty is only one whom you may call by any name. Hindus have no objection to pray to Jesus who is considered as the God or son of the God. As it is Hindu Gods have sons and people worship them). Most of us suffer from this most cruel and dangerous phenomenon of ego and still unable to over come the aspect. In the present world, most of the people are busy loving themselves and that is called self glorifying. Any one who boasts of self accomplishments in this world is resorting to self glorification and that is self love and this has to be definitely denounced. This should not be misunderstood as a tirade against any criticism against some opinions in the garb of expression ego. 2. The word heretic is generally used for those persons who do not believe in the scriptures of a particular religion and rebels against it. In the view of those who believe in such religion he is an heretic. All those who criticize Jesus Christ can be dubbed as Heretics by the followers of Christianity and all those who criticize Allah or Quran are called Heretics by Muslims. These can be from other faiths or from within faiths. Sufis have been persecuted as heretics. Wahaabi consider every one as heretic who do not subscribe to their views including Muslims. Muslims also use a peculiar word Kafirs for those who do not belong to Islam. It has been commented that Jesus Christ was a Heretic and thus was put to death by the Jewish clergy in league with the ruling Romans. He was heretic in the view of Jews. Jesus was a born Jew and preached his own theory and it was not acceptable to the clergy of Jewish system and he was persecuted till he was crucified. Thus the word Heretic is one way. It is in some ones view. For others he was God. The word Heretic thus has no definite acceptance universally as it is some ones one sided view view. 3. The word anti Christ can be understood as those who defy teachings of Jesus and do not follow his path shown to us. Truly they are many amongst us. In fact such men are there in all societies and in religions. As John warned his listeners about those who did not believe in Christ although externally appeared to have belonged to the group, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) too warned about similar persons who lived in the community and did damage to the belief. There are many who have turned to be atheists who have openly denounced existence of God and such beliefs while some probably do not come out openly for the fear of society. God only would judge them finally. Anti Christ may not also mean that he would not believe in other Gods. As an example a person belonging to other religion may not subscribe to beliefs of Jesus and thus in Christianity. He might be an ardent follower of his God belonging to his religion. Thus he can not be dubbed as atheist universally. He is anti Christ in the view of Christians and other religions. Thus anti Christ can not be assumed to be anti God universally and it has limited application to Christianity. 4. Although the blogs have generated lot of discussion, it has to be examined how this would help any one in terms of faith commons. Probably the word Anti Christ has to be used very judiciously.Dr K Prabhakar Rao
» reply
Antichrist or Anti-Christ
Submitted by bill on Thu, 02/22/2007 - 12:57.
Dr. Rao,
Your comment left me thinking quite a bit about what sorts of words and actions contribute to a common faith and which don't.
I understand your conclusion to be 1 or more of these:
the term Antichrist has little to no use in a common faith
the term Antichrist has nothing to offer at this place called Faith Commons
and/or its use in one or both of the above needs still to be examined, and perhaps determined.
My understanding came from these words at the end of your comment:
Dr: Rao wrote: 4. Although the blogs have generated lot of discussion, it has to be examined how this would help any one in terms of faith commons. Probably the word Anti Christ has to be used very judiciously
You are right on target in pointing out that the effect, whether for good or ill, of the common faith should be examined on such a loaded term as Antichrist.
Certainly, a pejorative term like Antichrist should never be used other than to refer to its historical or philosophical/theological origins. It has no purpose today. I hope that I didn't open up that possibility. However, after reading your comment, and then looking back at my original words, it is very plain that I may well have created a present day usage of the term. This should not be.
Nevertheless the compound construct of anti-Christ could still remain as a useful term denoting the opposing influence of the Christ influence, without being understood as a pronoun such as Antichrist. Maybe this is the better way to use it. As a hyphenated compound word it denotes an anti to the intended original, and avoids the pejorative pronoun that conjures up the Hollywood theology that too many people think of when they see the pronoun Antichrist.
As the benefit or dis-benefit to the Faith Commons, it seems that you took on some of this in your comment. The fact that many world religions see the power of “anti” forces within their body shows that it is also common. However, it is also all to easy to mark one's philosophical opponents as “anti,” a game tactic we often see in politics, in order to paint them as extreme when they are merely different. This is also a point that you touched on in your comment. Politics within religion is all too common.
A Commons of Faith must somehow rise above petty politics and name calling. These will always be with us, but we need a vocabulary that tends to keep the dialog above the fray as much as possible so that observers can know when a discussion has moved out of the Commons and into the back alleys. So, your point if certainly valid that terms like Antichrist that are more often pejorative should be used judiciously if used at all.
bill
» reply
I understand your effort to
I understand your effort to make the text culturally relevant however there was a context to what John wrote about, and that is the pre A.D. 70 context in which Nero, the Roman emperor was severely persecuted.
So yes, there is no "end of the world" in anthing John wrote...rather John is pointing out to his own lifetime and to a real and present danger for his contemporaries: Nero, the beast of Revelation.
You might want to take a look at http://preterism.com for more on this topic...