Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Pope Francis the Rev False Prophet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Clearly most of us can't be bothered to learn the distinction between false prophet and antichrist, so how about for the sake of moving the thread forward, you just pretend that every time someone says "antichrist," they mean "false prophet," and respond to them accordingly?
    If one accepts that the 666 in Rev 13 is the AC (a term not used in Rev), then the AC is the First Beast in Rev 13, just as the Second Beast in Rev 13 is the False Prophet.

    B1 comes from the sea
    B2 comes from the earth (which may mean the netherworld).

    These beasts should not be confused with the Four Living Creatures of Rev 4.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by hoghead
      You are jumping the gun here. The pope is, at last, helping bring the church up to date. I admire very much his efforts to overcome all forms of sexual oppression. Comparing teh pope with teh Anti-Christ, etc., is simply another example of an intolerant, bigoted fundamentalaistic ideology. Save that kind of rhetoric for your buddies in teh Bible Belt, where anyone over an eighth-grade education, back of the pews.
      I didn't suggest the pope was the "antichrist." I was more specific.



      Originally posted by hoghead
      Much depends on what you mean by the "true church." I grew up in a conservative environment, but I found it too restrictive and anti-intellectual. The reason I identify with liberal Christianity is that I like its openness. I very much respect its agenda: a healthy skepticism for tradition, emphasis on creativity, emphasis on personal experience over dogma, interreligious dialogue and mutual respect. As to particular uses, such as the Resurrection, I don't know where you got the idea that liberal Christians all deny that. I don't and I know plenty of theologians who don't either. Matter of fact, the Resurrection is a central tenet in the teachings of any one of a number of liberal-minded theologians I can think of, some of whom I know personally.
      As to the "true church" notion: I find Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. It has always represented a rich plurality of diverse POV's which often do conflict. That may be difficult for some. However, I like it, I love it, I want some more of it. It means we re free, have choices. If one church doesn't work for you, try another. Different strokes for different folks, as the old cliché goes. The "right" church, the "true" church is the one that works for you. Not all Christians are on the right, nor should they be. For some, a very conservative, right-wing church is the way to go. But certainly not for all. It didn't even begin to meet my spiritual and intellectual needs. So I moved to the left, to a more liberal stance.
      "True church" as in whatever Jesus meant by the "elect." That's one of the very few occasions he used that word, which tells me it was more than just an identification of the church in general.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        Examination of what Pope Francis actually said will exonerate him. <snip>

        .
        Since when has examination of what the Pope has actually said been important?

        A little bit of sarcasm here. Every time I read about some gaffe the Pope has said, some search or examination of what was actually said has little relationship to what the purported message is claimed. Francis is like a great Rorschach test, people read into his remarks what they want to. Iamgine if people took as much liberty in interpreting scripture the way they interpret the words of the Pope!

        Comment

        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
        Working...
        X