12 thoughts on “Seven Antichrist Myths Not To Fall For”

  1. Dear Tim, Well its a pleasure to speak with you again. I got your e-mail information on the antichrist. The antichrist Tim will be one of these last days presidents.Revelation chapter 17 verse 11. The antichrist will nuke his own people in the last days. One month after september 11, nuclear bombs were smuggled across the mexican borderline into 9 highly populated US cities which came out under George w Bush time watch which links him up as the endtimes prophesied beast of revelations. Go to the search engine youtube and look at RARE BANNED GEORGE W BUSH SPEACH

    Reply

  2. Tim, I read the article by Monte Judah “The Prince Who Is To Come”, and the Bible say’s in Rev.13:17 that it is the number of his name. I didn’t know his first name was “Prince” and his last name is “of Whales”. Prince Charles of Whales is not his name, so it can’t add up to 666. Charles Philip Arthur George are his given names, which add up to 1296 Whoops! Not him.

    Reply

    • Barry, you are choosing one narrow meaning of the translated word “name” as the “given name”. There is no justification for making such a interpretation choice. His name Charles is in Prince Charles of Wales anyway, possibly the most famous name in the world. Whoops =)

      Reply

  3. When jesus told the crowd “some of you here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of god coming in the clouds” was he not directly talking to that audience and did he not mean that “literally”? And when he said “to tell you the truth this generation shall not pass til all these sings be fulfilled he meant that literally to- most scholars agree. And there is no prophetic base for assuming theres a magical 2000 year gap in the 70 weeks of daniel-im sure god knows how to count lol.

    Reply

    • The Kingdom would have had to come literally in the First Century for all of Mt 24 and the 70th Week to have been fulfilled as you . Obviously it did not since we are still under man’s governments. Then what is the solution?

      1. You might want to read what happened after Jesus said that: the Transfiguration, a “vision” of the Kingdom coming.
      2. The 70 weeks do have natural divisions; 7, 62 and 1 week. Daniel never said “70 weeks IN A ROW”. So, yes, God knows how to count 70 weeks even if they are spread out over 2000 years.

      Hope this helps.

      Reply

  4. This was not referring to the transfiguration or pentecost. The transfiguration was not “the kingdom of god in the clouds”. Second, the “cut off” phrase was talking about the messiah-sorry but youre theories are interesting tim but not accurate.

    Reply

    • Mike, don’t feel sorry for me, you just need to recheck the statements of Jesus you are misquoting. You are adding to Scripture “clouds” without knowing it. I see it happen all the time when someone quotes a verse from memory without double-checking in rush to make a post calling someone else wrong. You need to slow down and maybe judge less?

      The truth is, he never mentioned clouds in Mt 16:28 or Lk 9:27 or Mark 9:1 he merely said they would see the kingdom, which they did in every case in the following chapter or passage. Hope this helps.

      Reply

  5. “Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.” (Mark 9:1

    The transformation was not in power. Everything was fulfilled by jesus death and ressurection-the book of revelation was symbolic and not literal-thats why martin luther wanted it excluded from the final canon-without revelation there would not be the whole “we’re the generation jesus was talking about” hype. Im not judging you tim youre a smart guy-but i dont believe we’re going to see the revelation end times. And by the way, iran will not be the aggressor as you stated, it is israel that will attack this is apparent by israels constant threats the last few years.

    Reply

  6. tim hear was why i said the coming in clouds part:

    Jesus prophesies DIRECTLY to the high priest (Caiphas) that he would live to see his second coming. Jesus uses the term “coming on the clouds of heaven”. Matthew 26:64 & Mark 14:62.

    “But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.'” (Matthew 26:64 NAB)

    Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'” (Mark 14:62 NAB)

    could you please explain this to me tim? im pretty sure the 70 weeks were fullfilled by jesus-jesus was the desolation that ended animal sacrifices-if i have to take a view on eschatolog its more of a partial preterist-otherwise i get alot of arguments from my family and friends who say jesus falsely prophecied the end of the world for the first century christians. i get into so many arguments with people calling jesus a false prophet- i have no ideal what i go through lol.

    http://joeland7.blogspot.com/2009/12/70-weeks-of-daniel-9-rapture-hoax-new.html

    Reply

    • Mike, that saying of Jesus does not mean the 2nd coming nor that the 70 weeks were fulfilled and preterism is true. They have other better explanations. Try this from Hard Sayings of the Bible:

      After his arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus was brought before a court of inquiry, presided over by the high priest. At first, according to Mark’s narrative, an attempt was made to convict him of having spoken against the Jerusalem temple. Not only was violation of the sanctity of the temple, whether in deed or in word, a capital offense; it was the one type of offense for which the Roman government allowed the supreme Jewish court to pass and execute sentence at its own discretion. Two or three years later, when Stephen was successfully prosecuted before the supreme court on a similar charge, there was no need to refer the case to Pilate before execution could be carried out. On the present occasion, however, Jesus could not be convicted on this charge because the two witnesses for the prosecution gave conflicting evidence.

      Then the high priest, apparently on his own initiative, asked Jesus to tell the court if he was the Messiah, the Son of God (using “the Blessed” as a substitute for the divine name). The Messiah was entitled to be described as the Son of God, if he was the person addressed by God in Psalm 2:7 with the words “You are my son,” or the person who in Psalm 89:26 cries to God, “Thou art my Father” (RSV). Jesus was not in the way of spontaneously referring to himself as the Messiah. But to the high priest’s question he answered, “I am.” How Matthew and Luke understood this reply may be seen from their renderings of it: “You have said so” (Matthew 26:64 RSV) or “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70 RSV). That is to say, if Jesus must give an answer to the high priest’s question, the answer cannot be other than yes, but the choice of words is the high priest’s, not his own. The words that followed, however, were his own choice. It is as though he said, “If ‘Christ’ (that is, ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One’) is the term you insist on using, then I have no option but to say yes, but if I were to choose my own terms, I should say that you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Here “power” on Jesus’ lips, meaning much the same as we mean when we say “the Almighty” is, like “the Blessed” on the high priest’s lips, a substitute for the divine name.)

      What, then, does this saying mean, and why was it declared blasphemous by the high priest? It means, in brief, that while the Son of Man, Jesus himself, stood now before his judges friendless and humiliated, they would one day see him vindicated by God. He says this in symbolic language, but the source of this symbolic language is biblical. Mention has been made already of the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven (see comment on §Mark 13:30); this language is drawn from Daniel 7:13-14, where “one like a son of man” is seen in a vision coming “with the clouds of heaven” to be presented before God (“the Ancient of Days”) and to receive eternal world dominion from him. The “one like a son of man” is a human figure, displacing the succession of beastlike figures who had been exercising world dominion previously. The one whose claims received such scant courtesy from his judges would yet be acknowledged as sovereign Lord in the hearts of men and women throughout the world. His claims would, moreover, be acknowledged by God: the Son of Man would be seen seated “at the right hand of the Almighty.” This wording is taken from Psalm 110:1, which records a divine oracle addressed certainly to the ruler of David’s line: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” The present prisoner at the bar would be seen to be, by divine appointment, Lord of the universe—and that not in the distant future, but forthwith. “From now on,” in Luke’s version, “the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God” (Luke 22:69). (Luke omits the language about the clouds of heaven.) “In the future,” in Matthew’s version, “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). The right hand of God was the place of supreme exaltation; the clouds were the vehicle of the divine glory.

      The Servant of the Lord in the Old Testament, once despised and rejected by men, was hailed by God as “raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (Isaiah 52:13); this role is filled in the New Testament by Jesus, obedient to the point of death, even death by crucifixion, being “highly exalted” by God and endowed with “the name which is above every name,” in order to be confessed by every tongue as Lord (Phil. 2:6-11 RSV). It is the same reversal of roles that is announced in Jesus’ reply to the high priest.

      Why was his reply judged to be blasphemous? Not because he agreed that he was the Messiah; that might be politically dangerous and could be interpreted as seditious by the Roman administration (as indeed it was), but it did not encroach on the prerogatives of God; neither did the claim to be Son of God in that sense. But the language which he went on to use by his own choice did appear to be an invasion of the glory that belongs to God alone. It was there that blasphemy was believed to lie. The historical sequel may be allowed to rule on the question whether it was blasphemy or an expression of faith in God which was justified in the event.
      — Hard Sayings of the Bible.

      Reply

  7. Hi tim i would love to talk to you i lost my lovely wife Alice last may to a heart attack. She was my best friend. We were very close. I give thanks that i know she is with jesus. but my heart is broken. I’m one who hopes that jesus comes soon.

    Reply

  8. Just a note to tell you the false prophet of antichrist will be an antipope who apostasizes from the Catholic Faith and St. Francis of Assisi warned this would be so. It is the Novus Ordo (New Mass) that is leading catholics into the one world church. It maybe after Pope Benedict XVI. I’ve read the antichrist will be Jewish to deceive the Jews who are still awaiting their messiah because they rejected the one true messiah, Jesus Christ.

    Reply

Leave a Comment