Was Adolf ****ler the Antichrist?

[David1967]

I agree with you on that. Those scriptures don't contradict eachother. Revelation doesn't contradict 1 and 2 John because it never mentions "Antichrist" being one person. It never mentions the word Antichrist at all. These are the scriptures that explicitly mention "Antichrist":

1 John 2:18: Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22: Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3: but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

So what do you make of 1 John 2:18 where it says "many antichrists" for instance?

Great scripture reference. I'm with you here. In my understanding (for what its worth), there have been and will be many who come as deceivers in the 'spirit ' of antichrist. Examples such as Nero, Hitler, Napolean, etc. Is there an individual in the future who will be worse than those before and be the final one? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. This has been reinterpreted so many times. Unfortunately today many protestants subscribe to the pre tribulation rapture, Left Behind Series, train of thought that to me at least takes a lot of liberty with what the bible says. This is a fairly recent way of interpreting so called end time events.

 

[David1967]

Are you from USA? The South would be considered the Bible Belt isn't it?

Guilty as charged. But don't hold it against me. I am pretty open minded.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Guilty as charged. But don't hold it against me. I am pretty open minded.

I regard people on their own merit. You get different types from all over the world. Never assume things about people.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Great scripture reference. I'm with you here. In my understanding (for what its worth), there have been and will be many who come as deceivers in the 'spirit ' of antichrist. Examples such as Nero, Hitler, Napolean, etc. Is there an individual in the future who will be worse than those before and be the final one? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. This has been reinterpreted so many times. Unfortunately today many protestants subscribe to the pre tribulation rapture, Left Behind Series, train of thought that to me at least takes a lot of liberty with what the bible says. This is a fairly recent way of interpreting so called end time events.

I'm very interested in understanding other peoples viewpoints. And I agree with your understanding of the scriptures on this point. And your understanding is in line with the scriptures. I myself prefer to have my beliefs rooted in analytical study of the scriptures. If someone cant prove what they say with valid analytical reasoning from scriptures (if it is a scriptural topic) then I don't see their reasoning as valid generally.

What is the Left Behind Series?

 

[AlexandertheGreat]

Ok ****ler had 2 million brown coats or SA members under his employ pre-gaining 34% of the vote to get elected. He was basically a gang lord giving employment to 2 million thugs which were ruling the streets of Germany prior to him being made chancellor. Anyway where did he gain this money from? The Rothschilds and Rockerfellas who he told one of his many lies to, to gain support. What happened next? the Night of the Long Knives where the leaders and some of the members of his hired thugs the SA got butchered. Carrying on the Antichrist is said to have a Jewish backing like what happened when the Rothschilds and Rockerfellas sponsored ****lers SA, in Muslim prophecies. Did those families regret their sponsorship later after being conned by ****ler? Hell Yes! I will go into more detail on ****ler being the Antichrist when some1 finally posts something related to him being this individual backed up by scripture.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ok ****ler had 2 million brown coats or SA members under his employ pre-gaining 34% of the vote to get elected. He was basically a gang lord giving employment to 2 million thugs which were ruling the streets of Germany prior to him being made chancellor. Anyway where did he gain this money from? The Rothschilds and Rockerfellas who he told one of his many lies to, to gain support. What happened next? the Night of the Long Knives where the leaders and some of the members of his hired thugs the SA got butchered. Carrying on the Antichrist is said to have a Jewish backing like what happened when the Rothschilds and Rockerfellas sponsored ****lers SA, in Muslim prophecies. Did those families regret their sponsorship later after being conned by ****ler? Hell Yes! I will go into more detail on ****ler being the Antichrist when some1 finally posts something related to him being this individual backed up by scripture.

My understanding of the antichrist based on the scriptures in previous posts specifically mentions people who deny Christ which is what the term means. So it is people in direct opposition to Jesus Christ. So someone in direct opposition to his followers as he is the head of the congregation and we are his representatives on earth. Also it could refer to false Messiah's. If Christ's followers as a whole were not targeted by a specific person then I doubt that person would be a "main" antichrist. The events in biblical scriptures are always relevent to God's chosen people at the time so I doubt a purely political reason would be a good enough reason to declare someone the antichrist.

Besides there were many people we might consider as bad as Hitler throughout history. Such as Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and whoever else depending on opinion and bias. So I can't confirm your suspicions based on biblical scripture unfortunately.

 

[David1967]

I'm very interested in understanding other peoples viewpoints. And I agree with your understanding of the scriptures on this point. And your understanding is in line with the scriptures. I myself prefer to have my beliefs rooted in analytical study of the scriptures. If someone cant prove what they say with valid analytical reasoning from scriptures (if it is a scriptural topic) then I don't see their reasoning as valid generally.

What is the Left Behind Series?

Left Behind is a series of books that revolve around a pre tribulation rapture of Christians and what happens after such as the rise of the antichrist and all the plagues that befall mankind. Pure fiction with a weak biblical link.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Antichrist by definition is the one who stands against Christ.
Christ by definition is the Anointed One of the Lord.
Now, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One."
That's what "Christ" means; the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God according Exodus 4:22,23.
Bottom line, any one who stands against Israel is by definition a member of the Antichrist.

 

[AlexandertheGreat]

Antichrist by definition is the one who stands against Christ.
Christ by definition is the Anointed One of the Lord.
Now, if you read Prophet Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One."
That's what "Christ" means; the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel the Son of God according Exodus 4:22,23.
Bottom line, any one who stands against Israel is by definition a member of the Antichrist.

I agree. hitler never gave money to the poor. "I will raise up among you an idol shepherd who does not give money to the poor". hitler was both idle (he used to wake up at 2 pm every day and an idol to his crazy followers). "the sword is on your brow" adolf ****ler started WWII. I can go on with the comparisons if you want?

 

[InChrist]

I think Antichrist is one who stands against Christ, but also one who attempts to...stand in place of.. Christ. Hitler demonstrated this attitude and spirit, as have others throughout history, by desiring to be worshiped as a Messiah or Savior. While I see Hitler as an antichrist who tried to gain worship and expand his control beyond Germany, he failed to dominate the entire world. I believe the scriptures show there will be a final Antichrist who does gain global control (for a short time), deceive Israel with a false promise of peace, and demand worship from the entire world as he sets himself up as god to be worshiped from the re-built temple in Jerusalem ( The Bible has nearly 800 references to Jerusalem- called “the City of our God” (Psalm 48:1,8) Jerusalem is God’s city, the city of Zion, he has invested his name there (Daniel 9:19).
See also: Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 13:4

Antichrist's Coming World Religion

The Spirit of Antichrist

7 Ways That Adolf Hitler Was A Perfect Type Of The Coming Biblical Antichrist • Now The End Begins

 

[DavidFirth]

That's just anti-Catholic nonsense. I'm not a Protestant so that doesn't work with me.

It's not anti-Catholic. It's the truth. Scripture supercedes Vatican dogma.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm very interested in understanding other peoples viewpoints. And I agree with your understanding of the scriptures on this point. And your understanding is in line with the scriptures. I myself prefer to have my beliefs rooted in analytical study of the scriptures. If someone cant prove what they say with valid analytical reasoning from scriptures (if it is a scriptural topic) then I don't see their reasoning as valid generally.

Care to hear some sour grapes from an old hand?

Note that Revelation is the last book in the canon. Its hardly a good idea to start with Revelation and work backwards, but generally that is how Revelation is interpreted. People interpret Revelation and then make inferences about the rest of the Christian Bible based upon that. For example Martin Luther begins by presuming the Pope is the antichrist and then goes from there. It implies this and that and so forth in the NT, and his interpretation cascades into other interpretations with become founding principles and doctrines. Many church groups probably do similarly, choosing an interpretation that appeals to them, choosing doctrines accordingly. Therefore most of them can prove their points of view with analytical reasoning based upon the doctrines which they got from their views of Revelation, because (Surprise!) they got their doctrines from particular views of Revelation to begin with.

The point is, just about every interpretation of Revelation is supported with analytical reasoning, but its based upon appropriate assumptions that will lead to a desired result. Such reasoning is fallacious and therefore invalid.

Your best bet is to not interpret Revelation. Just read it and let it be, and don't let people stuff your itching ears. They'll waste your time and your life and turn you into a slave by making you feel like you're not smart enough or good enough. Its all about making you feel like you need someone else to teach you what the Bible means and that the minister's pay is justified. While people are telling you particular interpretations of this book, they will charge you through the nose for it. They'll sell you books that get you nowhere and waste your time and magazine subscriptions. They'll try to draw you in to all kinds of schemes, whatever scratches your ears.

What is the Left Behind Series?

Pre-tribulational fiction that's very popular.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not anti-Catholic. It's the truth. Scripture supercedes Vatican dogma.

And it continues.

 

[DavidFirth]

And it continues.

You disagree?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You disagree?

You assume what the Vatican teaches contradicts scripture.

 

[DavidFirth]

You assume what the Vatican teaches contradicts scripture.

No, I simply say the Vatican doesn't carry the weight of scripture and we don't need them to explain scripture to us. Many times they throw in extra stuff and leave out stuff. Sometimes they're wrong, too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, I simply say the Vatican doesn't carry the weight of scripture and we don't need them to explain scripture to us. Many times they throw in extra stuff and leave out stuff. Sometimes they're wrong, too.

Just more Protestant misunderstanding of the Church. Catholics believe that the Magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture and establish doctrine due to Apostolic Succession. This, in theory, leads to unity in belief among Catholics. Protestants and their offshoots are all over the place.

 

[SomeRandom]

Left Behind is a series of books that revolve around a pre tribulation rapture of Christians and what happens after such as the rise of the antichrist and all the plagues that befall mankind. Pure fiction with a weak biblical link.

It was also adapted into a series of hilaribad movies often ripped apart on the net, even by some Christians.

 

[DavidFirth]

Just more Protestant misunderstanding of the Church. Catholics believe that the Magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture and establish doctrine due to Apostolic Succession. This, in theory, leads to unity in belief among Catholics. Protestants and their offshoots are all over the place.

This belief is errant. Neither the pope or anyone else = scripture or the authority of one of the original apostles.

When popes committed fornication and ordered murders they obviously weren't following the doctrine of Christ. Don't give me this "put on a robe and you're holy" BS. I don't buy into it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This belief is errant. Neither the pope or anyone else = scripture or the authority of one of the original apostles.

When popes committed fornication and ordered murders they obviously weren't following the doctrine of Christ. Don't give me this "put on a robe and you're holy" BS. I don't buy into it.

I don't care if you believe or not. I know you don't. I'm just correcting you. The Church doesn't teach "put on a robe and you're holy", either. Clergy have of course committed great wrongs in the past and present. But that's different from teaching doctrinal error.