Rapture Bound
Active member
He'll be along when it's time, and NOBODY WILL RECOGNIZE HIM, until it's too late. The Church PRAISED HITLER - until.
Yep - it's happening now as we speak.
He'll be along when it's time, and NOBODY WILL RECOGNIZE HIM, until it's too late. The Church PRAISED HITLER - until.
unfortunately I agreeHe'll be along when it's time, and NOBODY WILL RECOGNIZE HIM, until it's too late. The Church PRAISED HITLER - until.
I said in post #21 that Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so he is the man of lawfulness, and by contrast the antichrist is the man of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and @dwight92070 claims in post #27 that Jesus broke the Sabbath.What is the connection between the Sabbath and the OP of this thread .... "what are your views on the antichrist?
Just wondering .... talk about being off topic.
I said in post #21 that Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so he is the man of lawfulness, and by contrast the antichrist is the man of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and @dwight92070 claims in post #27 that Jesus broke the Sabbath.
Our choice in whether or not to follow God's law, including our choice of whether to keep the Sabbath holy, is a choice between whether to follow the man of lawfulness or the man of lawlessness.
If I recall correctly, there are verses that refer to antichrists and the antichrist. These are literal people who oppose Christ and one who has a specific role just as there are literal Christs (anointed ones) and the one Christ who has a specific role. For some reason some people think it is a good idea to oppose obeying what God has commanded while Christ us God's word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of what God has commanded.o.k. - I think I get it now, you don't believe that there will ever be a literal person referred to as the antichrist to head up the last kingdom/government to rule prior to Christ's Return. That is to say ... the term "the man of lawlessness" is exclusively a personification., that is ... a figure of speech intended to represent an abstract quality. [i.e. - the 'spirit' of lawlessness]. If this is your perspective, then your belief appears to line up with the traditional amillennial viewpoint.
If I recall correctly, there are verses that refer to antichrists and the antichrist. These are literal people who oppose Christ and one who has a specific role just as there are literal Christs (anointed ones) and the one Christ who has a specific role. For some reason some people think it is a good idea to oppose obeying what God has commanded while Christ us God's word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of what God has commanded.
I have not suggested that there will not be a literal antichrist or that I have an amillennial viewpoint.o.k.- so perhaps you are proposing that all those who oppose Christ and His commands are literal people called "antichrists" and there will never be a literal person referred to as "the antichrist" to head up the last kingdom/government to rule prior to Christ's Return. If this is your perspective, then your belief appears to line up with the traditional amillennial viewpoint.
I have not suggested that there will not be a literal antichrist or that I have an amillennial viewpoint.
Jesus touched dead bodies several times, in violation of the law. Sure He was raising the dead, but He had to touch the dead body first, in order to raise it, which is a violation of the law. When the Pharisees accused His disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking heads of grain, Jesus DID NOT claim that they were not violating the Sabbath. Instead He referred them to the incident with David, when he and his men were hungry, and the priest gave them the showbread, which Jesus admitted was NOT LAWFUL. So He was acknowledging that what His disciples were doing was unlawful on the Sabbath. So what was Jesus' justification for them doing that? "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Just like a police officer can violate the speed limit laws because of who he is, without being accused of breaking the law, so Jesus had the authority and right to break the Sabbath if He wanted to, or to allow His disciples to break the Sabbath, because He was the Lord.It is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and Jesus was sinless, which means that he never broke any of its laws, which includes never breaking the Sabbath, and for you to suggest that he did it to say that he sinned and therefore to deny that he is our Savior. It is contradictory for someone to think that the Pharisees were correct in thinking that Jesus broke the Sabbath by healing on it while also thinking that Jesus was correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath. It has always been lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so Jesus was correct and those who think that he broke the Sabbath are incorrect.
The Bible never lists which laws are ceremonial and never even refers to that as being a category of law. Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so he did not break any of the laws that you have dubbed to be ceremonial laws. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own set of commands. John 15:10, Jesus said that he obeyed the Father's commands without making an exceptions for "ceremonial laws" and he equated his commands with those of the Father, so he did not command anything other than the Mosaic Law.
Colossians 2:14 it is speaking about the list of our transgressions of the Mosaic Law being nailed to Christ's cross and about him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our lawlessness, not about the Mosaic Law being nailed to the cross. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Mosaic Law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished from the cross. In
Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), and which he commissioned his disciples to bring to the nations (Matthew 28:16-20). In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, his Gospel involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page about teaching repentance from our sins.
The visions came from God, not from me. The Holy Spirit even told me the birthday of the anti Christ. Guess who it was.