The more accurate position - the one more accurately consistent with the whole of scripture and all its contexts is that 1) there are many antichrists, not just one, 2) the term is not mentioned in any other book in the Bible, 3) the term is defined by John in his epistles and 4) the term as defined by John does not apply to the AoD (many don't think about this), 5) the believers living in first century Thessalonica knew what was holding back the lawless man (we assume it was the HS but we don't actually know that it is an assumption on our part whereas it was a known condition to Paul and the Thessalonians, 6) the AoD is said to appear within the generation of Jesus' first century audience, 7) there are three beasts, not one, mentioned in Revelation, 8) all the beasts are said to appear at a time near to when John wrote Revelation because the time was then at hand, things that would follow the trials cited in the seven first century churches listed in the first century, 9) one beast of Rev.
Possibly, but that was not the claim made. No one is taking about that, either.ĭue to other scripture we know that 'beast and false prophet' are indeed anti-Christ figures. In nearly all other views the Dispensationalists reject the Reformed theologies but on this one point they are happy to agree. There's an enormous paradox here because most of the sources cited in the op were Reformed and not Dispensationalist but it is the Dispensationalists arguing for the Pope-is-the-antichrist position. Just because a bunch of Christians living a thousand years after the canon was closed (none of whom were apostles or inspired authorities) argue something does not make it true. So far the thread is couched predominantly in an either/or manner I don't see many suggesting BOTH views might be incorrect and a third alternative bears more veracity with scripture.
That view is just as problematic scripturally and theologically and rationally as the position it confronts. If we took the op as written then the undeniable implication is that no one in Christianity figured out the identity of the antichrist until at least the 1300s. Neither does it make the current Pope the antichrist. That does not make the office of the Pope the antichrist. Papalism runs into direct conflict with tons of scripture both in edict and precedent, as well as theology and reason.
The existence of a Pope is enormously problematic. Love the very Tarkovskian burning house in the background.The pope has a personality profile that ignores confrontation from Holy writ. But nothing quite compares to the design for Eden, the videogame version of the film (no, really) being developed by von Trier's Zentropa Films and billed as “a nightmare version of Myst”. Below are the US one-sheet (top left), based on the original Danish design: the UK subway station design (top right) and Italian poster (bottom left), both of which use nothing but typography and the more pastoral French poster. posters). Though the concept is a little bit Saw-like, it is undeniably smarter than those, and I love its understated typography.Ī tough sell if ever there was one, though coasting in on the notoriety that precedes it from Cannes, Antichrist has already inspired many different campaigns. I particularly like the first of his 4 Months, 3 Weeks. (Saunders' website contains many fine rejected designs for films he's worked on. Visually striking and deeply unpleasant, and thus perfectly in sync with the film it is promoting, the Australian poster for Lars von Trier's Antichrist was designed by Jeremy Saunders and is already popping up all over the internet, though there seem to be some doubt as to whether this will yet accompany the official Australian release.
0 kommentar(er)
