Protestant friend talked about his beliefs on who the antichrist is and challenged our beliefs as Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter MARAN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MARAN

Guest
Good morning all

I have this protestant friend whom I argue with on faith matters. Recently he talked about his beliefs on who the antichrist is and challenged our beliefs as Catholics. He even went to quote our own internal resources justifying his position. He has shared with me various Videos on various topics and Im confused now. How can I defend our faith in these matters? I have attached 2 videos for your reference. I need your help.
 
Last edited:
I have provided a more informative title. The videos mentioned in the OP and provided in the original title probably violate CAF rules, as anti-Catholic material, so I cannot post them.

Trust me, the 2 videos which were originally posted in the title are rotten and not worth your time.
 
Last edited:
MARAN said:
How can I defend our faith in these matters?
Click to expand...
As a lifelong Protestant I will say that the great majority of such arguments are based on taking an extremely literal interpretation of scripture. Watch the two videos suggested by Todd_ Easton. Also, be aware that in taking things to the literal extent that Protestantism does, they confine most revelations to a very narrow viewpoint.

Here’s an additional bit by Bishop Barron that may help you.

 
Beryllos said:
I have provided a more informative title. The videos mentioned in the OP and provided in the original title probably violate CAF rules, as anti-Catholic material, so I cannot post them.

Trust me, the 2 videos which were originally posted in the title are rotten and not worth your time.
Click to expand...
The videos are anti-Catholic, but this is how some Protestants think about Catholicism. I recall that someone had posted a few of the Chick comics which were also anti-Catholic.
 
Let’s be honest - it’s hard to go wrong with Bishop Robert Barron!!
 
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22 KJV)
Click to expand...
I watched the first few minutes of the first and longer videos, Who is the Antichrist? featuring the late Mark Woodman, apparently a Seventh Day Adventist preacher. After saying how important it was to look to the Bible for the truth, the speaker didn’t even mention the Biblical definition of an antichrist, namely, “he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ,” and instead gave his own man-made definition, namely, somebody who comes in the place of Christ, based on an obscure meaning of the prefix anti, namely, in the place of, apparently because one of the papal titles is the vicar of Christ and the word vicar can mean someone who acts in the place of another, as in someone who acts in the place of Christ. If the speaker had given the Biblical definition of an antichrist, his whole argument that the popes are the Antichrist would have been shown to be false from the outset because the popes have never denied that Jesus is the Christ.
 
Last edited:
Todd_Easton said:
… the Biblical definition of an antichrist, namely, “he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ,” and instead gave his own man-made definition …
Click to expand...
I do not mean to address what a man deceased has said, but I will comment on the subject of the definition of “anti” according to Holy Scripture, and yes, it does have two definitions:

– against

– in the place of

Both definitions fit perfectly well with “he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ”, in this way:

[1] as someone which is “against” Jesus Christ, thus denies that Jesus is the Christ in sheer afront, or opposition, and

[2] as someone which is “in the place of” Jesus Christ, thus denies that Jesus is the Christ, by seeking to usurp the position/place of Him.

Thus in both fashions, or both definitions, it fits fine. Now to the Holy Scriptures:

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[1] opposeth (meaning against)

[2] exalteth (meaning to the very place of)

The Catholic encyclopedia defines the word anti in both fashions also:

“… In composition anti has different meanings: …” [Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Antichrist”]

"… anti … ( in the place of …)…" [Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “S”; “Sacrifice”]

In this sense it is very much like the Latin word ‘vicarius’:

" Vicar
( Latin vicarius , from vice , " instead of ") …" [Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; “Vicar”]

In the Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:13 the word “Antipas”, means “in the place of the father” or even “against the father”. Words like “Antioch”, and “Antipatris” are also found similar uses. Even in Septuaginta, Lev. 6:15 (6:22 English)

Lev_6:15 ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ἀντ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ποιήσει αὐτήν· νόμος αἰώνιος, ἅπαν ἐπιτελεσθήσεται.

It literally says, “christos anti”.

Lev 6:22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt.

See also septaginta II Chron. 26:1, “anti” meaning “in the place/room/office of”, “anti tou patros” (in the place of the [his Uzziah’s] father [Amaziah]") Also see, I Ki 5:1 English for similar phrasing, though septuaginta changes the words and speaks of chariots and being lifted up, instead of being anointed in the place of, as English.

See also Matt. 2:22, “anti” meaning “in the place/room/office of”, “anti [H]erwdou tou patros” (in the place of Herod the [his Archelaus] father [Herod]").

Other places are Luke 1:20, 12:3, 19:44; Acts 12:23; II Thess 2:10, “anth wn”; and Eph 5:31, “anti toutou”.

So, in short, to be against, and/or in the place/room/office of, both fit “anti”, and both fit “deny” Jesus the Christ, but in differing ways. One is overt opposition, the other is covert opposition or usurpation (like False Smerdis; Ezr. 4:7-24).
 
Last edited:
I may be adding something you have already read in one or more of these comments. Every generation in every century since the beginning of Christianity has had their own list of who the anti-Christ was to be. As Catholics, we know there was one anti-Christ named Nero, whose name, in their ancient numbering system, equaled 666. Nero lived during the time of the destruction on Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. We also know that there have been many anti-Christs in every generation including Paul’s generation. We also know there will be a powerful anti-Christ type at the end of time. The problem is that we tend not to learn from history so the end-times folks continue generation after generation to call some prominent figure in their generation the anti-Christ and, so far, they have all been wrong. Anyone remember the book ‘88 Reasons the World Will End in 1988’. When it didn’t happen, the author released another book in 1989 with the updated date in the title. The second edition did not do as well as the first. This is the same mentality of the anti-Christ soothsayers. Instead of watching for the next anti-christ, we might be better served to be watching for Christ Himself especially since every soothsayer in every generation keeps getting it wrong making the saying true that ‘if we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it’. (Or something like that 🙂 God bless
 
joyalton said:
Nero, whose name, in their ancient numbering system, equaled 666
Click to expand...
Actually, historically and numerologically, this is incorrect.

Some will suggest that the book of Revelation was written only for those living at the time, and that 666 most probably applies to Cæsar Nero, who ruled Rome from 54 to 68 A.D., rather than someone from latter centuries. This point of view, which suggests Revelation had an immediate application to the first century, rather than being prophetic, is known as preterism , and is found in the modern Jesuit formulation . So, just how is Nero linked to 666?

The preterist takes a relatively uncommon form of Nero’s name, Nero Cæsar or Cæsar Nero, and adds an “n”, resulting in NeronCæsar. Next the Latin is transliterated into Aramaic, resulting in nrwnqsr, which when using the numeric equivalent of the letters, then adds up to 666 as follows:

N un = 50
R esh = 200
W aw = 6
N un = 50

Q oph = 100
S amech = 60
R esh = 200

An example of this spelling has apparently been recently discovered in one of the Dead Sea scrolls. If you use the same process, but without the added “n” the result is 616. Interestingly, some early manuscripts have 616 rather than 666, but even scholars such as Irenæus [A.D. 120-202] attribute the 616 to only a copyist error (Against Heresies: Book V Chapter XXX.), “this number [666] being found in all the most approved and ancient copies” [of the Apocalypse] and asserts that "men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony " [to it - 666].

There is a problem though with the above calculation [in regards ‘Nero’]. According to the rules of Jewish numerology, known as gematria , when the letter Nun appears a second time in a word, it is known as a “Final”, and takes the value of 700.* So to be precise, NRWN QSR actually adds up to 1316 and not 666.

*Source: Behind Numerology, by Shirley Blackwell Lawrence, copyright 1989, published by Newcastle Publishing Co., Inc., North Hollywood, California, ISBN 0-87877-145-X, page 41.

To see a more indepth look at 666, consider the following material presented (from that point forward) - 666 - The scriptural [KJB] Truth | Page 4 | Baptist Christian Forums

The same material might have been posted here, but there are serious detrimental shortcomings with this type of forum setup. It is very limited in space, for one, and for another, well, let’s say that it’s better posted elsewhere, in an open academic area.
 
Last edited:
joyalton said:
As Catholics, we know there was one anti-Christ named Nero, whose name, in their ancient numbering system, equaled 666. Nero lived during the time of the destruction on Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. We also know that there have been many anti-Christs in every generation including Paul’s generation. We also know there will be a powerful anti-Christ type at the end of time.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what videos the OP is talking about or who they suggest is the Anti-Christ, but Nero was an Anti-Christ of the First Coming. An Anti-Christ is someone who comes around the same time as the Christ and opposes the Christ’s goals or agenda. The Anti-Christ of the Second Coming, I suggest is Hitler and he has already come and gone. Hitler is the main Anti-Christ of our age, but there have been other minor Anti-Christs. Many people believe that the latest of these minor Anti-Christs is Donald Trump – see http://www.antichristtrump.org/ and Should we call Donald Trump “antichrist”? - ABC Religion & Ethics
 
To all the responses to my post that started this thread. I have read and heard of the comments your shared. I have heard (Jimmy Akin, I think it was) speak about the variation of number ie. 616 verses 666 and, from the last post, about the latest minor Anti-Christ being Trump which just serves to make, for me, the same points I started with. Nobody knows and, even if we knew exactly who the Anti-Christ is that will do us no good if we ourselves are not united to Christ in charity AKA in a state of grace at the time of our own death. This is where I prefer to place my focus (not that I have arrived). This last post gave a Baptist link. (Now I will confess that the Catholic Church is trying to teach me to be more open to our separated brethren’s opinions and I have heard from Catholic sources that there are some very good Protestants resources out there), however, I remain somewhat shy about going to any Protestant sources at this time. I think that stems from the fact that my old brand of Protestantism drilled into me novel Protestant doctrines that were made up by men and that are less than 200 years old including ‘once saved always saved’, the sinner’s prayer mantra, the altar call, symbolic baptism/communion and the rapture just to name a few. I still feel cheated and deprived of the truth about these and other teachings on the Gospel and salvation. It took me til age 70 before these issues began to be clarified for me through Catholic teachings, especially the early church fathers. With my Catholic and Protestant research over the last 2 years, I now see that I really knew nothing about either’s beliefs. I just accepted those Protestant teachings as true (when they were not) and I just accepted that the Catholics teachings were from Satan (when they were actually from Jesus, the Apostles and Scripture). So forgive me if my comments here may seem a little harsh toward our Protestant brethren but my old wounds are still a little raw. It is difficult for me to embrace any teachings (from Protestantism) that not only reject the early church teachings but also reject the very teachings of their own Reformation leaders. God’s blessing to all including our Protestant brethren.
 
In reading one of the articles in Catholic Answers Magazine referenced above, the author states the following:

“Further, in Scripture the beast is clearly a political leader, not a Church leader. In fact, the beast is literally identified with one of the early Roman emperors, who had no part of the Church.”

As far as my reading of Revelation goes, these two claims (the beast is a political leader and the beast is an early Roman emperor) are not supported by Scripture. Although it is possible to bend one’s mind around 666 as Nero, the Bible is not that explicit.

Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
I had a discussion like this with 2 people online who’d insisted that the Pope is the antichrist & that the Eucharist is - I don’t remember what she’d claimed - but - as with all things Protestant - as I am a former Protestant - I asked to see the reference in the Bible - book, chapter, & verse - with appropriate Greek Interlinear if available (It is), & if it’s not written in the Scriptures, by their own standards, it’s UNScriptural. And when they want me to watch something like the videos presented to you, I thank them for their EXTRABiblical sources, but I continue to press them for the Biblical source since that’s their authority.

Hold them to their own standard.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top