The Doctrine of Antichrist (No. 243B)

From the Statement of Beliefs (A1) we see that the Bible text was changed very early to disguise the Nature of God and the position of Christ in the incarnation and his relationship to God.

The Doctrine of Antichrist

The doctrine of Antichrist is stated in 1John 4:1-3. The KJV from the Receptus states: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Now this text is not the correct original text. We know from this text that:

1. It is a test as to who is of God and who is of the Antichrist.

2. It has to do with the confession that Christ came in the flesh.

3. From the original text and its alteration we will deduce exactly what the doctrine of Antichrist sought to achieve and how the distinction was concealed in early Christianity from the time of John, i.e. at the end of the First century and the beginning of the Second century, seeking to change the doctrines on the Nature of God.

The correct ancient text for 1John 4:1-2 is reconstructed from Irenaeus, Chapter 16:8 (ANF, Vol. 1, fn. p. 443).

Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God but is of Antichrist.

This matter of the separation of Jesus Christ is the issue in question and derives from the Mystery and Sun cults and the Gnostic teachings which sought to achieve two distinctions. The worship of the god Attis at Rome which was derived from the Sun cults and the worship of Baal in the Middle East sought to make distinct the aspect of the god in heaven and the god that was derived from that God as a division of itself and which came down to earth and descended into Hades on the Friday and was resurrected by the intervention of the goddess on the Sunday. The goddess was called Ashtoreth as consort of Baal as referred to in the Bible, or Ishtar, or Easter in the Anglo-Saxon, and in the Attis system it was Cybele. This doctrine is not Christian and it is of the Sun and Mystery cults and uses the solar calendar and the solstices as its vehicle or system of worship.

Socrates the historian says (VII, 32, p. 381) that the passage had been corrupted by those who wished to separate the humanity of Jesus Christ from his divinity.

Socrates Scholasticus writes regarding Nestorius at VII 32:

Now he was evidently unacquainted with the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies,1007 ‘Every spirit that separates Jesus, is not of God.’ The mutilation of this passage1008 is attributable to those who desired to separate the Divine nature from the human economy: or to use the very language of the early interpreters, some persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at ‘separating the manhood of Christ from his Deity.’ But the humanity is united to the Divinity in the Saviour, so as to constitute not two persons but one only. Hence it was that the ancients,

emboldened by this testimony, scrupled not to style Mary Theotocos. For thus Eusebius Pamphilus in his third book of the Life of Constantine1009 writes in these terms:

‘And in fact “God with us” submitted to be born for our sake; and the place of his nativity is by the Hebrews called Bethlehem. Wherefore the devout empress Helena adorned the place of accouchement of the God-bearing virgin with the most splendid monuments, decorating that sacred spot with the richest ornaments.’ Origen also in the first volume of his Commentaries on the apostle’s epistle to the Romans,1010 gives an ample exposition of the sense in which the term Theotocos is used. It is therefore obvious that Nestorius had very little acquaintance with the treatises of the ancients, and for that reason, as I observed, objected to the word only: for that he does not assert Christ to be a mere man, as Photinus did or Paul of Samosata, his own published homilies fully demonstrate. In these discourses he nowhere destroys the proper personality1011 of the Word of God; but on the contrary invariably maintains that he has an essential and distinct personality and existence. Nor does he ever deny his subsistence as Photinus and the Samosatan did, and as the Manichæans and followers of Montanus have also dared to do. Such in fact I find Nestorius, both from having myself read his own works, and from the assurances of his admirers. But this idle contention of his has produced no slight ferment in the religious world.

1007 1 John iv. 2, 3. The findings of modern textual criticism are at variance with Socrates’ opinion that the original in the epistle of John was λύει (separates). Westcott and Hort admit λύει into their margin, but evidently in order to have it translated as the Revised Version has it (also in the margin) ‘annulleth,’ taking away all the force of the passage as used here.

1008 Of what nature was this mutilation? Some authorities omitted it altogether (see Tischendorf, Novum. Test. ed. Octav.

Maj., on the passage); others changed λύει into μὴ ὁμολογῇ.

1009 Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. III. 43.

1010 Cf. Origen, Com. in Rom. I. 1. 5.

(These notes reflect the opinions of the Trinitarian editor and are from THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. Revised, with Notes, by THE REV. A. C. ZENOS, D.D. PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT HARTFORD, CONN. pp. 312-313.)

This dispute related to the notion that the virgin Mariam could be theotocos or the God bearer, and the notion that Christ was an elohim as a son of God had been destroyed by the dispute which ultimately resulted. Whereas the Bible structure established Christ as an elohim and son of God along with the other sons of God (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:4-7). From the end of the Second century they began to elevate Christ to a position of a being elevated above the elohim and the elohim were reduced to the status of Aggelos or “Angels” rather than sons of God as elohim, and an inferior type or class distinct from Christ. We can deduce the dispute from the writing of Socrates yet he himself does not understand the true depth of the errors developed from the Binitarians of Attis that entered Christianity from the middle of the Second century in Rome.

The dispute of the Nestorians regarding the position of Mariam (incorrectly called Mary) was not properly understood by either side of the argument as they had been corrupted by over two centuries of Binitarian heresy. However, it was Mariolatry that appears to have instigated the dispute through Nestorius.

Now we can reconstruct the text and the meaning of the full texts from Irenaeus at Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1: Book 3, Chapter xvi, Sections 8-9. Let us examine these distinctions more to see just what this distinctive heresy is as it determines whether you are a Christian or not and, hence, whether you are in the First Resurrection. Irenaeus makes this perfectly clear in 16:8 as follows. He also mentions that the pagan doctrines of the Aeons are concerned. Hence we are looking also at the Neo-Platonist model which we developed elsewhere. It is the Biblical doctrines of the sons of God that are in question as we see developed in the Psalms from Deuteronomy 32:8ff. and Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:4-7. It is this fact of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ that is essential to the Christian Doctrine as we see below (see also the paper The Pre-existence of Jesus Christ (No. 243)).

Also, the heresies that entered the early First century church were more Gnostic. Binitarianism did not enter the Christian system in any serious way until the conversions from Attis in Rome in the Second century. The process has been explained in the paper Binitarian and Trinitarian Misrepresentation of the Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127B), as well as being more fully developed in the Law of God, Vol. 2 Book 1.

The Colossian and Galatian heresies are explained in the text Heresy in the Apostolic Church (No. 089) and further in Law of God Vol. 2. The structure of the Aeons has been superimposed on the central structure of the elohim as in the structure of the Thirty in Revelation 4 and 5, and the Seventy as structured from Sinai, and by Christ in Luke 10:1,17 which replaced the Sanhedrin and allocated its power to the Council of the Seventy in the Church of God (or LXX). Irenaeus refutes the reduction of Christ as it was done by the Gnostic intruders into the church, which reduced Christ to a lower level of the Aeon structure in the demiurge. We will see this reaction then used to insert the Binitarian system after 175 CE in Rome with the elevation of Christ over the elohim, rather than as one of them, and then they develop the Athanasian system of the Late Third and Early Fourth century which became ultimately the Trinitarian system from 381 CE. See his explanation of what the Gnostics did.

8. All, therefore, are outside of the [Christian] dispensation, who, under pretext of knowledge, understand that Jesus was one, and Christ another, and the Only-begotten another, from whom again is the Word, and that the Saviour is another, whom these disciples of error allege to be a production of those who were made Aeons in a state of degeneracy. Such men are to outward appearance sheep; for they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves. Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought."²⁹⁶ And again does he say in the Epistle: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist."²⁹⁷ These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God; "²⁹⁸ knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.

9. Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: "Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus."²⁹⁹ It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him gain, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life."³⁰⁰ But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: "For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."³⁰¹ He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was laid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Christ and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven, as he himself [Paul] says: "But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God."³⁰² And again, "Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more: "³⁰³ for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teachers [with regard to the Lord's person], and being desirous of cutting away from them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also declares: ] "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies."³⁰⁴ This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not err, [he says to all: ] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the right hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; "who, when He was buffeted, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not; "³⁰⁵ and when He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who had crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Footnotes to sections 8 and 9

²⁹⁶2 John 7, 8. Irenaeus seems to have read autouj instead of eautouj, as in the received text.

²⁹⁷1 John iv. 1, 2. This is a material difference from the received text of the passage: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." The Vulgate translation and Origen agree with Irenaeus, and Tertullian seems to recognise both readings (Adv. Marc., v. 16). Socrates tells us (vii. 32, p. 381) that the passage had been corrupted by those who wished to separate the humanity of Christ from His divinity, and that the old copies read, pan pneuma o luei ton Ihsoun apo tou Qeou ouk esti, which exactly agrees with Origen's quotation, and very nearly with that of Irenaeus, now before us. Polycarp (Ep., c. vii.) seems to allude to the passage as we have it now, and so does Ignatius (Ep. Smyr., c. v.) See the question discussed by Burton, in his Ante-Nicene Testimonies [to the Div. of Christ. Another work of Burton has a similar name. See British Critic, vol. ii. (of 1827), p. 265].

²⁹⁸1 John v. 1.

²⁹⁹Rom. v. 17.

³⁰⁰Rom. vi. 3, 4.

³⁰¹Rom. v. 6-10. Irenaeus appears to have read, as does the Vulgate, eij ti gar, for eti gar in text. rec.

³⁰²Rom. viii. 34.

³⁰³Rom. vi. 9.

³⁰⁴Rom. viii. 11.

³⁰⁵1 Pet. ii. 23.

We have it on the authority of Irenaeus and the Vulgate and that of the later scholars that Irenaeus’ version is the original and it was not until Tertullian that we see the text used in the Receptus accepted.

Therefore the text here is correct and we must see what the difference is and why that text came to be used.

Conclusions regarding the Bible teachings on Christ

Antichrist

Christ clearly did not consider himself God. To suggest that he was part of the entity to which he appealed, in an equal form, part of which was impassable, is absurd. More importantly it can be seen as the doctrine of Antichrist stated in 1John 4:1-2 as above.

Also in Luke 22:70 they all said “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied “You are right in saying I am.”

It is beyond doubt that the early church was subordinationist and that those trained from Smyrna under the apostles and those such as Polycarp were Biblical Unitarians and held that only the Father was the One True God and that all others, Christ included, were granted eternal life from the Father.

Irenaeus spoke not only against the Gnostics and their heaven and hell doctrines as did Justin Martyr (Dial. LXXX) but also against the newly emerging Binitarianism of the Sun cults in Rome and identified their Binitarian doctrines as heresy, and their system went on to fully develop the Trinitarianism of the Triune God. That is the doctrine of Antichrist and its correct structure is seen from Irenaeus above. This doctrine penetrated the Churches of God at the end of the Twentieth century from the US.

Trinitarians got around this problem by saying that Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity (LaCugna, ibid.). This resulted in the identification of Trinitarianism with the doctrine of Antichrist, which it is, and thus the definition in 1John 4:1-2 was altered from the original as we see above.

If we believe that God raised Christ from the dead we will be saved. If we say that Christ is God and we then begin to say that Christ did not die and was not resurrected by God and that the humanity of Christ is separated from his divinity by ascribing such state to him, then we have the doctrine of Antichrist. As we observed, Socrates, the Historian, says (VII, 32, p. 381) that 1John 4:2-3 was altered by those [now Trinitarians], in the early centuries, who wished to separate the humanity and death of Christ from his divinity (see Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, fn. p. 443).

The correct text should read:

Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God but is of Antichrist.

However, the explanation of the texts as we see above is far more involved.

John said that no man had seen God at any time (1Jn. 4:9-15). How then can the Son be the God who sent him, and which God has been seen by no man at any time? God sent the Son to be the saviour of the world. His sacrifice is adequate because God sent him, not because Christ was God. The Greek Philosophical argument about the inadmissibility of a vicarious sacrifice is biblically and intellectually absurd.

Whoever confesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God. That concept is the core of the sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice is adequate for us because God said it was adequate. Christ went to be sacrificed because he was obedient unto death (Phil. 2:6-8). Christ qualified by his obedience to become High Priest of all and to become a son of God in power, through the Holy Spirit, by his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4). He was advanced by what he suffered.

It is beyond doubt that all writers accepted that Christ had a pre-existence before the Incarnation as one of the sons of God and that he was the Messiah. Thus the traditions that emerged from the Hadith in the heretical stages of Islam after the death of the Prophet Qasim and the Rightly Guided Caliphs sought to deny the pre-existence of Christ and separate the divinity and the humanity of Christ and thus fall into the doctrine of Antichrist. The Radical Unitarians that emerged from the Reformation who deny the pre-existence of Christ are also of the doctrine of Antichrist. In a similar way the Sabellianists who taught that God was Christ as both Father and Son also take the doctrine of Antichrist to another level that seeks to deny the Father and the Son as distinct entities.

We are thus at the stage now that Mariolatry has taken over the Roman Catholic and Orthodox systems as well as a substantial element of the Anglican systems. We are now at the levels of the Mother Goddess system in the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth with their structure, and the Sun cults also of Attis, Adonis, Osiris and their mother goddess consorts of Ishtar, Easter, Isis and Cybele, as well as the Mithras system and the Perseus bull slaying myths associated in the Mithras system.

Islam is now dead to the Koran and understands none of its teachings having perverted them as Judaism perverted the Bible with their traditions and Kabbalah.

Islam denies the Bible teachings and effectively separates the Divinity from the Humanity of Christ and indeed denies his divinity as an elohim and the Bible teachings entirely. It is corrupted entirely by the paganism of the pre-Christian and pre-Islamic Arabs.

The world system that will emerge at the end of these times will be effectively a system that is derived from the Mystery and Sun cults that deny the pre-existence of Christ and which deny or separate his divinity from his humanity.

Many Muslims do not accept our Jesus Christ, as the son of God. They say he was only a messenger. They are effectively blind to the Bible texts and those of the Koran, which are derived from the Bible. They are in fact anti Christ, bringing down the Christian faith everywhere totally in opposition to the position of the Bible and the Koran. That is being slowly done in all the Israelite countries and those nations associated with them. They are flooding all over Europe, and USA, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, France and Africa to South Africa.

In Revelation chapter 17 it says that the kings of the earth have committed fornication and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. In chapter 18 also it says the same and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Further in verse 9 it goes on to say that they would see the smoke of the burning; from verse 17 the ships stood afar off.

From chapter 14 it goes on to deal with the vine of the earth, and how the nations will be made drunk of it, and the fire would torment, the smoke will ascend forever and there will be no rest either in the day or night (see also the paper The Messages of Revelation 14 (No. 270)).

One might be excused for aligning the calamity of the fires of Revelation with oil rigs which can cause the fire to burn day and night for days or longer.

Thus this weakness which the Western nations have allowed to weaken them and which has become their Achilles' heel will be allowed to be used against them.

The Western countries, now so dependent on Middle East oil that they are letting the Muslims freely preach Islam in these countries and they are polluting them as the Hadith polluted the Middle East before them.

The massive collision of the Antichrist system will involve Islam and the Mother Goddess system and the Satanists and there will be no end to it, save under the Messiah.

Our Western politicians are seemingly too spineless to deal with it and face the coming conflict. In fact, they will become part of the coming Beast System. The Doctrine of Antichrist is certain to be determinative of any professed Christians place in the First Resurrection. Radical Unitarians, Binitarians, Trinitarians, Sabellianists and Hadithic Islam and all other heresies will not be there.