meltzerboy
New member
I’ve heard that according to Muslim belief, the anti-Christ will be the Jewish Messiah. Is this what is taught in Islam, or is it anti-Muslim propaganda?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
_L
Guest
I believe one of the Muslim Hadiths says that the Dajjal (Muslim antiChrist figure) will be a Jew and will be proclaimed the messiah by his jewish followers.I’ve heard that according to Muslim belief, the anti-Christ will be the Jewish Messiah. Is this what is taught in Islam, or is it anti-Muslim propaganda?
There are several schools of thought from a Christian perspective, but one of views is similar in that the actual anti Christ will be a Jew from the tribe of Dan who falsely claims to be the messiah, and will claim to be God and demand worship in the rebuilt 3rd temple in Jerusalem.
B
BartBurk
Guest
I think some of our modern day movements such as Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism are of the anti-christ because they deny the divinity of Jesus. Certainly, Islam could be classified as the anti-Christ because it denies the divinity of Jesus. I don’t see the anti-Christ so much as a person as a spirit which is found in the world and is opposed to our Lord and denies who He is.I was amused by how many different ideas and speculations people have about this mythical figure (the Antichrist) in the history of the world.
F
fred_stoutland
Guest
The one constant on this subject is that there is no agreement universally on the issue of the antichrist. In the Protestant Faith there are various views depending on how Revelation is approached. Some believe it isn’t mainly prophecy, but rather a glimpse into the Roman Empire at the time of the writing. Others believe it should all be spiritualized because it is a treatise on good and evil. Others believe it is an historical picture of what will happen from New Testament times until Christ returns. The final view is that most of Revelation is truly about the End Times.
With this said, I attempt to give you what I know scholars see in the antichrist:
Although the actual title “antichrist” only appears in the Bible books that John the Apostle wrote, the conception of an archenemy of God the Son is found in both the Old and New Testaments. The title is also found in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apocryphal manuscripts.
Because Christ is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, it offers no noticeable picture of the antichrist. But the portrait of the “king of the north” in Daniel 11 as the personification of evil has helped to shape the New Testament figure for many scholars. Daniel 11 mirrors the descriptions mentioned in Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8; Revelation 13:14-15; 19:20. And the beast from the sea in Revelation 13:1 recalls Daniel 7:3, 7 and strengthens the link between Daniel’s prophecy and the New Testament account of the antichrist.
While commentators identify the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the antichrist, they vary greatly in who actually is the antichrist. They argue that Paul uses the term “man of sin” (sometimes translated son of perdition or man of lawlessness) to describe what John identifies as the antichrist. Daniel 11:36-37 speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the antichrist. There are many theories – many speculations.
Who or what is the antichrist? Early Christian writings noted that since the tribe of Dan was not on the list of the 144,000 “sealed” Jews mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8, and since Dan was the perpetrator in Jeremiah’s prophecy of “terror” in Jeremiah 8:5-16, they concluded the antichrist would be a descendant of the tribe of Dan. Few believe this theory anymore.
Some Protestant people think the antichrist isn’t an individual, but is rather an evil system – referring to the “many antichrists” phrase mentioned in 1 John 2:18, and the fact that anti-Christian forces have persecuted the Church throughout our history.
Others, however, believe the antichrist is personal and that the prophecies about the antichrist have already been fulfilled back when John wrote Revelation. Some think that this was Nero, who, after committing suicide, was expected to come back to reclaim his throne. In this theory, the seven-headed beast symbolizes the Roman Empire because the city of Rome is built on seven hills (Revelation 17:9). Today no one believes this theory either. Or that any Roman emperor can be the antichrist.
Still other Protestants believe that the antichrist will emerge as the leader of the restored Roman Empire in some form or another. He will make commitments to Israel (Daniel 7:6, 21-27; 9:24-27; Revelation 17:9-14), then will be assassinated and restored to life. According to this view, the antichrist will exalt himself in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (although not all in this camp believe there will be a physical temple) and begin to persecute the Jews. This will cause Israel to turn to the Messiah. The time of the “great tribulation” will end with military forces converging on Israel to defeat the antichrist.
It is likely that most people who are alive when the antichrist is revealed will be very surprised at his identity. The antichrist may or may not be alive today. Martin Luther was convinced that the pope in his time was the antichrist. During World War I my grandfather thought it was the Kaiser; during the 1940’s my father thought it was Adolph Hitler and then Stalin. Today, there are those who believe it is our president or the leader of Iran. All such identifications are, of course, pure speculation, and so we should put them behind us to focus on what the Bible actually says about the antichrist in Revelation 13:5-8.
Records show that the church fathers in the early Church generally believed in a personal antichrist. His identity hinged on whether the ‘mystery of lawlessness” was interpreted politically or religiously. Nero for them was the culprit. But, in the ideal or symbolic view, antichrist is an ageless personification of evil, not identifiable with any one nation, institution or individual. And so the debate goes on in this area. But there’s more debate coming up in other sections. In the meantime, let’s look at what Revelation says is the false prophet.
With this said, I attempt to give you what I know scholars see in the antichrist:
Although the actual title “antichrist” only appears in the Bible books that John the Apostle wrote, the conception of an archenemy of God the Son is found in both the Old and New Testaments. The title is also found in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apocryphal manuscripts.
Because Christ is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, it offers no noticeable picture of the antichrist. But the portrait of the “king of the north” in Daniel 11 as the personification of evil has helped to shape the New Testament figure for many scholars. Daniel 11 mirrors the descriptions mentioned in Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8; Revelation 13:14-15; 19:20. And the beast from the sea in Revelation 13:1 recalls Daniel 7:3, 7 and strengthens the link between Daniel’s prophecy and the New Testament account of the antichrist.
While commentators identify the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the antichrist, they vary greatly in who actually is the antichrist. They argue that Paul uses the term “man of sin” (sometimes translated son of perdition or man of lawlessness) to describe what John identifies as the antichrist. Daniel 11:36-37 speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the antichrist. There are many theories – many speculations.
Who or what is the antichrist? Early Christian writings noted that since the tribe of Dan was not on the list of the 144,000 “sealed” Jews mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8, and since Dan was the perpetrator in Jeremiah’s prophecy of “terror” in Jeremiah 8:5-16, they concluded the antichrist would be a descendant of the tribe of Dan. Few believe this theory anymore.
Some Protestant people think the antichrist isn’t an individual, but is rather an evil system – referring to the “many antichrists” phrase mentioned in 1 John 2:18, and the fact that anti-Christian forces have persecuted the Church throughout our history.
Others, however, believe the antichrist is personal and that the prophecies about the antichrist have already been fulfilled back when John wrote Revelation. Some think that this was Nero, who, after committing suicide, was expected to come back to reclaim his throne. In this theory, the seven-headed beast symbolizes the Roman Empire because the city of Rome is built on seven hills (Revelation 17:9). Today no one believes this theory either. Or that any Roman emperor can be the antichrist.
Still other Protestants believe that the antichrist will emerge as the leader of the restored Roman Empire in some form or another. He will make commitments to Israel (Daniel 7:6, 21-27; 9:24-27; Revelation 17:9-14), then will be assassinated and restored to life. According to this view, the antichrist will exalt himself in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (although not all in this camp believe there will be a physical temple) and begin to persecute the Jews. This will cause Israel to turn to the Messiah. The time of the “great tribulation” will end with military forces converging on Israel to defeat the antichrist.
It is likely that most people who are alive when the antichrist is revealed will be very surprised at his identity. The antichrist may or may not be alive today. Martin Luther was convinced that the pope in his time was the antichrist. During World War I my grandfather thought it was the Kaiser; during the 1940’s my father thought it was Adolph Hitler and then Stalin. Today, there are those who believe it is our president or the leader of Iran. All such identifications are, of course, pure speculation, and so we should put them behind us to focus on what the Bible actually says about the antichrist in Revelation 13:5-8.
Records show that the church fathers in the early Church generally believed in a personal antichrist. His identity hinged on whether the ‘mystery of lawlessness” was interpreted politically or religiously. Nero for them was the culprit. But, in the ideal or symbolic view, antichrist is an ageless personification of evil, not identifiable with any one nation, institution or individual. And so the debate goes on in this area. But there’s more debate coming up in other sections. In the meantime, let’s look at what Revelation says is the false prophet.
W
Wesley7
Guest
Very informative post! I enjoyed reading it.The one constant on this subject is that there is no agreement universally on the issue of the antichrist. In the Protestant Faith there are various views depending on how Revelation is approached. Some believe it isn’t mainly prophecy, but rather a glimpse into the Roman Empire at the time of the writing. Others believe it should all be spiritualized because it is a treatise on good and evil. Others believe it is an historical picture of what will happen from New Testament times until Christ returns. The final view is that most of Revelation is truly about the End Times.
With this said, I attempt to give you what I know scholars see in the antichrist:
Although the actual title “antichrist” only appears in the Bible books that John the Apostle wrote, the conception of an archenemy of God the Son is found in both the Old and New Testaments. The title is also found in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apocryphal manuscripts.
Because Christ is not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, it offers no noticeable picture of the antichrist. But the portrait of the “king of the north” in Daniel 11 as the personification of evil has helped to shape the New Testament figure for many scholars. Daniel 11 mirrors the descriptions mentioned in Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 8; Revelation 13:14-15; 19:20. And the beast from the sea in Revelation 13:1 recalls Daniel 7:3, 7 and strengthens the link between Daniel’s prophecy and the New Testament account of the antichrist.
While commentators identify the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the antichrist, they vary greatly in who actually is the antichrist. They argue that Paul uses the term “man of sin” (sometimes translated son of perdition or man of lawlessness) to describe what John identifies as the antichrist. Daniel 11:36-37 speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the antichrist. There are many theories – many speculations.
Who or what is the antichrist? Early Christian writings noted that since the tribe of Dan was not on the list of the 144,000 “sealed” Jews mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8, and since Dan was the perpetrator in Jeremiah’s prophecy of “terror” in Jeremiah 8:5-16, they concluded the antichrist would be a descendant of the tribe of Dan. Few believe this theory anymore.
Some Protestant people think the antichrist isn’t an individual, but is rather an evil system – referring to the “many antichrists” phrase mentioned in 1 John 2:18, and the fact that anti-Christian forces have persecuted the Church throughout our history.
Others, however, believe the antichrist is personal and that the prophecies about the antichrist have already been fulfilled back when John wrote Revelation. Some think that this was Nero, who, after committing suicide, was expected to come back to reclaim his throne. In this theory, the seven-headed beast symbolizes the Roman Empire because the city of Rome is built on seven hills (Revelation 17:9). Today no one believes this theory either. Or that any Roman emperor can be the antichrist.
Still other Protestants believe that the antichrist will emerge as the leader of the restored Roman Empire in some form or another. He will make commitments to Israel (Daniel 7:6, 21-27; 9:24-27; Revelation 17:9-14), then will be assassinated and restored to life. According to this view, the antichrist will exalt himself in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (although not all in this camp believe there will be a physical temple) and begin to persecute the Jews. This will cause Israel to turn to the Messiah. The time of the “great tribulation” will end with military forces converging on Israel to defeat the antichrist.
It is likely that most people who are alive when the antichrist is revealed will be very surprised at his identity. The antichrist may or may not be alive today. Martin Luther was convinced that the pope in his time was the antichrist. During World War I my grandfather thought it was the Kaiser; during the 1940’s my father thought it was Adolph Hitler and then Stalin. Today, there are those who believe it is our president or the leader of Iran. All such identifications are, of course, pure speculation, and so we should put them behind us to focus on what the Bible actually says about the antichrist in Revelation 13:5-8.
Records show that the church fathers in the early Church generally believed in a personal antichrist. His identity hinged on whether the ‘mystery of lawlessness” was interpreted politically or religiously. Nero for them was the culprit. But, in the ideal or symbolic view, antichrist is an ageless personification of evil, not identifiable with any one nation, institution or individual. And so the debate goes on in this area. But there’s more debate coming up in other sections. In the meantime, let’s look at what Revelation says is the false prophet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.